On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 10:04:47AM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > 2015-08-06 18:33 GMT-03:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>: > > This reverts commit 0b45b0746f45deea11670a8b2c949776bbbef55c. > > > > The point of testing for LAST_FLAG + 1 is to catch abi extensions - > > despite our best efforts we really suck at properly reviewing for test > > coverage when extending ABI. > > > > The real bug here is that David Weinhall hasn't submitted updated igts > > for the NO_ZEROMAP feature yet. Imo the right course of action is to > > revert that feature if the testcase don't show up within a few days. > > > > Cc: David Weinehall <david.weinehall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c b/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c > > index 5ff3b13f4c7a..b44b37cf0538 100644 > > --- a/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c > > +++ b/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c > > @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ igt_main > > ctx_param.size = 0; > > } > > > > - ctx_param.param = -1; > > + ctx_param.param = LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_BAN_PERIOD + 1; > > How about adding a comment somewhere "If this breaks it's because we > extended the number of params without updating IGT. Please add the > proper tests for the new param"? That will help preventing us from > making the same error again next year. Good idea! Kind regards, David _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
