On 08/06/2015 02:30 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > 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. We really need man pages for new ioctls as well in libdrm. Jesse _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
