Re: [PATCH igt] igt/gem_exec_scheduler: HAS_SCHEDULER no longer means HAS_PREEMPTION

[Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>]

On Tue, 2017-09-26 at 10:32 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Michal wants to limit machines that can do preemption, which means that
> we no longer can assume that if we have a scheduler for execbuf, that
> implies we have preemption.
> 
> v2: Try a capability mask instead
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> ---
>  tests/gem_exec_schedule.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/gem_exec_schedule.c b/tests/gem_exec_schedule.c
> index 0b1925f1..85c69703 100644
> --- a/tests/gem_exec_schedule.c
> +++ b/tests/gem_exec_schedule.c
> @@ -33,6 +33,8 @@
>  #include "igt_sysfs.h"
>  
>  #define LOCAL_PARAM_HAS_SCHEDULER 41
> +#define   HAS_SCHEDULER (1u << 0)
> +#define   HAS_PREEMPTION (1u << 2)

How about some BIT()? I think wehave it in IGT, at least I wrote
patches for it.

Looks good to me, can you reference the latest Mesa patches in here and
the kernel counterpart (reference the kernel counterpart here too).

Regards, Joonas
-- 
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx