On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 02:21:54PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 04:21:24PM +0200, Mika Kuoppala wrote: > > Test parameter set/get for ban periods. > > Test actual impact on banning. > > Nice. These are more like the tests Daniel was thinking of when he asked > his question. Could you please separate out the negative parameter > testing to a new gem_ctx_param set of tests? Testing whether changing > the ban period has any effect seems sensible to keep in gem_reset_stats. Imo the negative parameter tests are fine as-is, I've used the current naming at least for the testcase tag. Usuaully I put an -invalid- somewhere in the name though, but that's optional. Anyway patch merged, thanks for patch, testcase& review. -Daniel > > > + igt_skip_on(gem_context_has_param(fd, LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_BAN_PERIOD) > > + == 0); > > is better as > > igt_require(gem_context_has_param(fd, LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_BAN_PERIOD); > > as that produces a saner error message. > -Chris > > -- > Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
