On Fri, 2015-08-21 at 16:26 +0300, Ander Conselvan De Oliveira wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 15:53 +0300, David Weinehall wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 11:33:00PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > The reason I never submitted it was probably because of Chris's strong
> > opposition to the feature in the first place; I've had the testcase
> > laying around on my computer for quite a while.
> >
> > Anyhow, here's a slightly modified version of that test -- hopefully
> > not breaking anything.
> >
> >
> > Signed-off-by: David Weinehall <david.weinehall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/ioctl_wrappers.h b/lib/ioctl_wrappers.h
> > index bc5d4bd827cf..f4deca6bd79e 100644
> > --- a/lib/ioctl_wrappers.h
> > +++ b/lib/ioctl_wrappers.h
> > @@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ struct local_i915_gem_context_param {
> > uint32_t size;
> > uint64_t param;
> > #define LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_BAN_PERIOD 0x1
> > +#define LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_NO_ZEROMAP 0x2
> > uint64_t value;
> > };
> > void gem_context_require_ban_period(int fd);
> > diff --git a/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c b/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c
> > index b44b37cf0538..1e7e8ff40703 100644
> > --- a/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c
> > +++ b/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c
> > @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ igt_main
> > ctx = gem_context_create(fd);
> > }
> >
> > - ctx_param.param = LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_BAN_PERIOD;
> > + ctx_param.param = LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_BAN_PERIOD;
> >
> > igt_subtest("basic") {
> > ctx_param.context = ctx;
> > @@ -98,21 +98,31 @@ igt_main
>
> [...]
>
> > - ctx_param.param = LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_BAN_PERIOD;
> > + ctx_param.param = LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_NO_ZEROMAP;
> >
> > - igt_subtest("non-root-set") {
> > + igt_subtest("non-root-set-no-zeromap") {
> > igt_fork(child, 1) {
> > igt_drop_root();
>
> ctx_param.context = ctx;
> TEST_FAIL(LOCAL_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CONTEXT_SETPARAM, EINVAL);
> TEST_SUCCESS(LOCAL_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CONTEXT_GETPARAM);
> ctx_param.value--;
> TEST_SUCCESS(LOCAL_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CONTEXT_SETPARAM);
>
> (I've added the code missing from the context)
Except I added the wrong code. Here's what is in i-g-t now:
ctx_param.param = LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_NO_ZEROMAP;
igt_subtest("non-root-set-no-zeromap") {
igt_fork(child, 1) {
igt_drop_root();
ctx_param.context = ctx;
TEST_SUCCESS(LOCAL_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CONTEXT_GETPARAM);
ctx_param.value--;
TEST_FAIL(LOCAL_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CONTEXT_SETPARAM, EPERM);
}
igt_waitchildren();
}
> The code in i915_gem_context_setparam_ioctl() that handles CONTEXT_PARAM_NO_ZEROMAP never returns
> EPERM, so this test always fails.
Ander
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
