On 04/01/2015 05:39 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
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.
You know all this time I didn't realize you were saying me check was
broken, just that it was confusing. :)
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
