Re: [PATCH] igt/gem_create_stolen: Verifying extended gem_create ioctl

[Ankitprasad Sharma <ankitprasad.r.sharma@intel.com>]

On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 08:52 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 03:51:52PM +0530, ankitprasad.r.sharma@intel.com wrote:
> > From: Ankitprasad Sharma <ankitprasad.r.sharma@intel.com>
> > 
> > This patch adds the testcases for verifying the new extended
> > gem_create ioctl. By means of this extended ioctl, memory
> > placement of the GEM object can be specified, i.e. either
> > shmem or stolen memory.
> > These testcases include functional tests and interface tests for
> > testing the gem_create ioctl call for stolen memory placement
> > 
> > v2: Testing pread/pwrite functionality for stolen backed objects,
> > added local struct for extended gem_create and gem_get_aperture,
> > until headers catch up (Chris)
> > 
> > v3: Removed get_aperture related functions, extended gem_pread
> > to compare speeds for user pages with and without page faults,
> > unexposed local_gem_create struct, changed gem_create_stolen
> > usage (Chris)
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ankitprasad Sharma <ankitprasad.r.sharma@intel.com>
> 
> An igt to check for invalid arguments of the gem create ioctl (especially
> the newly added flags parameters) seems to be missing.
> -Daniel

\Wwe already have a test to check invalid arguments for the newly added
flags parameter in the current set of tests.

static void invalid_flag_test(int fd)

-Ankit

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx