On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:18:24AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Zhao Yakui <yakui.zhao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 12:32 -0600, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >> + igt_subtest("rel-constants-invalid") { > >> + execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_RENDER | (I915_EXEC_CONSTANTS_REL_SURFACE+1); > >> + RUN_FAIL(EINVAL); > > > > It seems that the exec.flags is the same as "I915_EXEC_BSD | > > I915_EXEC_CONSTANTS_REL_SURFACE). And then it is similar to subtest of > > rel-constants-invalid-ring. Not sure whether you are hoping to set the > > flag as "I915_EXEC_RENDER | I915_EXEC_CONSTANTS_MASK"? > > They're three completely different checks: > 1. checks for invalid flags on rings other than RENDER > 2. checks for a specific invalid flag which doesn't exist on gen5+ any more > 3. checks for a completely invalid flag (notice the + 1) on any platform I think the point was that I915_EXEC_RENDER+1 == I915_EXEC_BSD. Hence the +1 is entirely bogus. So you want either I915_EXEC_CONSTANTS_REL_SURFACE+(1<<6) or just I915_EXEC_CONSTANTS_MASK. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx