On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:52:52AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 05:53:17PM +0300, David Weinehall wrote: > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 01:32:10PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > A simple functional test here which does: > > > a) an execbuf with just 1 batch. With full ppgtt you should get that one > > > at offset 0. If not, skip the testcase. > > > b) set the NO_ZEROMAP property. > > > c) re-run the same batch, assert that now the buffer is relocated to > > > something non-0. > > > > > > Just to make sure we have a bare minimal testcase to make sure we don't > > > break this. > > > > Maybe this should be added to another test rather than here? This test > > is described as a: > > > > "Basic test for context set/get param input validation." > > > > Somehow I feel that testing whether the *functionality* is correct > > does not belong in this test, but rather in some test case that's > > already related to execbufs, or even a dedicated test case. > > > > But that might be over-engineering. Opinions? > > Yeah separate testcase would fit better, agreed. Update version of this patch is still missing. I'll need to revert the kernel side if this one doesn't show up soonish. Also you're breaking the invalid-flags testcase (did you bother to run them all and check for regressions?) which Jesse spotted, and with the new basic set this will be a P1 "I'm going to block everything" bug. -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
