On 29/01/16 11:35, Chris Wilson wrote:
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.
The difference would be that the CI system still reports that BAT
succeeded if one or more tests go from PASS to SKIP (e.g.
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2016-January/086586.html).
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
This patch can be dropped then.
Thanks,
Daniele
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
