> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gordon, David S
> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 4:04 PM
> To: Gore, Tim; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Wood, Thomas
> Subject: Re: [PATCH i-g-t] tests/gem_exec_params: change flags
> used in invalid-flags test
>
> 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.
Yes, I can do that if people like the idea.
Tim
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
