On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 08:52:54AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 03:51:52PM +0530, ankitprasad.r.sharma@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Ankitprasad Sharma <ankitprasad.r.sharma@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > This patch adds the testcases for verifying the new extended > > gem_create ioctl. By means of this extended ioctl, memory > > placement of the GEM object can be specified, i.e. either > > shmem or stolen memory. > > These testcases include functional tests and interface tests for > > testing the gem_create ioctl call for stolen memory placement > > > > v2: Testing pread/pwrite functionality for stolen backed objects, > > added local struct for extended gem_create and gem_get_aperture, > > until headers catch up (Chris) > > > > v3: Removed get_aperture related functions, extended gem_pread > > to compare speeds for user pages with and without page faults, > > unexposed local_gem_create struct, changed gem_create_stolen > > usage (Chris) > > > > Signed-off-by: Ankitprasad Sharma <ankitprasad.r.sharma@xxxxxxxxx> > > An igt to check for invalid arguments of the gem create ioctl (especially > the newly added flags parameters) seems to be missing. If we do that, I would actually create gem_create.c to do the parameter testing of CREATE, and rename this to gem_stolen.c as this covers the functional side of using stolen (i.e. not limited to testing the CREATE API). And I want a pink pony. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
