On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 10:12:08AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > 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. Yes, that would be even nicer. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
