On 12/01/15 14:09, tim.gore@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Tim Gore <tim.gore@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> The invalid-flags test in gem_exec_params uses
> (I915_EXEC_HANDLE_LUT << 1) as an invalid flag, but this
> is no longer invalid for recent android versions, and may
> not be invalid in Linux in the future. So I have changed
> this test to use (__I915_EXEC_UNKNOWN_FLAGS) instead.
> __I915_EXEC_UNKNOWN_FLAGS is defined in i915_drm.h as a
> mask of all the undefined flags.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tim Gore <tim.gore@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tests/gem_exec_params.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/gem_exec_params.c b/tests/gem_exec_params.c
> index f63eda9..2a1c544 100644
> --- a/tests/gem_exec_params.c
> +++ b/tests/gem_exec_params.c
> @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ igt_main
> /* HANDLE_LUT and NO_RELOC are already exercised by gem_exec_lut_handle */
>
> igt_subtest("invalid-flag") {
> - execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_RENDER | (I915_EXEC_HANDLE_LUT << 1);
> + execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_RENDER | (__I915_EXEC_UNKNOWN_FLAGS);
> RUN_FAIL(EINVAL);
> }
>
Should we perhaps have a test that iterates over each bit in this mask
one at a time (to check that EACH of them is correctly detected and
rejected) as well as this one with ALL the unknown flag bits set?
.Dave.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
