On 18 September 2015 at 17:02, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 09/18/2015 03:22 AM, Thomas Wood wrote: >> It's helpful to include "i-g-t" in the subject line for >> intel-gpu-tools patches so that they are easily identified. This can >> be done by using the --subject-prefix "PATCH i-g-t" option when using >> git format-patch or send-email and can also be set as a local >> configuration option using the following command: git config >> format.subjectprefix "PATCH i-g-t" > > Yeah you mentioned this before and I forgot, sorry. I'll add git configs to my igt repos so make it happen automatically. > >> On 17 September 2015 at 17:41, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> This subtest is trying to set the no-zeromap flag on the context without >>> root privs. Rather than expecting an EPERM on what's presumably a >>> nonzero value, we should expect success on a set call w/o root privs. >>> This looks like a copy & paste error from when the subtest was added, >>> since setting the ban period has different expected behavior. >> >> There is already a patch for this: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/58991/ >> >> I was waiting for confirmation on the expected behaviour, but also >> testing both root and non-root for success seems a bit redundant. >> Perhaps removing the root-set test would be worthwhile. > > Yeah that would be ok too. FWIW the other patch has my r-b too, though I haven't heard back from David. > > Do you want to commit Daniele's patch or should I just push mine? Thanks for the review, I've pushed Daniele's patch with your reviewed-by tag as I already had it queued. > > Thanks, > Jesse > _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
