On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 06:33:40AM -0700, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 04/18/2014 06:10 PM, Volkin, Bradley D wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 04:13:04AM -0700, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> A set of userptr test cases to support the new feature. > >> > >> For the eviction and swapping stress testing I have extracted > >> some common behaviour from gem_evict_everything and made both > >> test cases use it to avoid duplicating the code. > >> > >> Both unsynchronized and synchronized userptr objects are > >> tested but the latter set of tests will be skipped if kernel > >> is compiled without MMU_NOTIFIERS. > >> > >> Also, with 32-bit userspace swapping tests are skipped if > >> the system has a lot more RAM than process address space. > >> Forking swapping tests are not skipped since they can still > >> trigger swapping by cumulative effect. > >> > >> v2: > >> * Fixed dmabuf test. > >> * Added test for rejecting read-only. > >> * Fixed ioctl detection for latest kernel patch. > >> > >> v3: > >> * Updated copy() for Gen8+. > >> * Fixed ioctl detection on kernels without MMU_NOTIFIERs. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > A number of the comments I made on patch 3 apply here as well. > > The sizeof(linear) thing is more prevalent in this test, though > > it looks like linear is at least used. Other than those comments > > this looks good to me. > > Believe it or not that sizeof(linear) "idiom" I inherited from other > blitter tests. Personally I don't care one way or another. But since it > makes sense to get rid of it for the benchmark part, perhaps I should > change it here as well to be consistent. How strongly do you feel > strongly about this? I think changing it would be slightly more readable, but if it's consistent with other blit tests then I don't feel too strongly about it. In fact, consistency with the other tests might be the better approach. I'm fine with whichever approach you prefer. Thanks, Brad > > Will see what you reply on the static initializer comment it 3/3, not > sure what you meant there. > > Thanks, > > Tvrtko _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
