On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 10:54:26AM +0530, Ankitprasad Sharma wrote: > On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 08:52 +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. > > -Daniel > > \Wwe already have a test to check invalid arguments for the newly added > flags parameter in the current set of tests. > > static void invalid_flag_test(int fd) Oh right I totally missed that. Especially for future extension I think Chris' idea to split up tests sounds really good, i.e. gem_create/invalid-flags (the one testcase I didn't spot) gem_stolen/<all the other tests> Otherwise the next person extending gem_create will miss your invalid-flags test for it. Thanks, 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
