On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:16:37AM +0000, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote: > > > On 29/01/16 10:58, Chris Wilson wrote: > >On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 09:21:33AM +0000, daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>From: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >>gem_require_ring will submit an execbuf using the provided flags and > >>skip the test if the ioctl fails. This test is however designed to catch > >>issues with the ioctl, so it should fail if the ioctl fails on a ring > >>that the HW possesses. > >> > >>Instead of using gem_require_ring we can use the getparam ioctl. The new > >>checker has been added to the test file and not to the commmon library > >>because this test is the only special case where we want to not use > >>gem_has_ring > >That would be gem_exec_param. > >-Chris > > I don't understand what you mean, can you elaborate a bit? For the purposes of checking that the kernel honours the ABI, the tests belong in gem_exec_params. For the purposes of CI, a testing going from PASS -> SKIP is just as indicative of a problem as test going from PASS -> FAIL or any other state. > What I wanted to fix here is the fact that the logic to skip the > test and the test itself are identical, which means that this test > can't fail. As far as I can tell gem_exec_param is trying to catch > errors in the handling of invalid flags, while in this test we check > for errors in the handling of valid flags instead. Basically the logic is repeated, that is not an issue for its purpose. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
