On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:31:16PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:07:25PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > > On 04/01/2015 04:42 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > > >On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 04:14:52PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > >>+ /* Re-exec with padding set. */ > > >>+ igt_assert(exec(fd, eb_handles, pad_to_size, offsets) == 0); > > > > > >The crux of the test is that we generate two objects such that > > > > > >B_offset = A_offset + A_size > > > > > >and then tell the kernel that A is actually 2*size (A_pad_to_size) > > > > > >>+ if (offsets[1] > offsets[0]) > > >>+ distance = offsets[1] - offsets[0]; > > >>+ else > > >>+ distance = offsets[0] - offsets[1]; > > > > > >The assertion I feel should only be that > > > > > >B_offset + B_size <= A_offset && B_offset >= A_offset + A_pad_to_size > > > > I don't get this. B starts after A + padding, but B ends before A? > > s/&&/||/ Sorry &&. Gah, must be time for a coffee break. The assertion is that the objects do not overlap based on the pad_to_size we expect the kernel to apply, rather than their natural size. If the kernel doesn't move the objects, they would it would fail. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
