Re: [PATCH i-g-t] tests/gem_bad_length: drop gem_bad_length.c

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

On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 12:32 +0300, Petri Latvala wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 04:44:25PM -0700, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote:
> > Most of the gem_bad_length code is compiled out because creating
> > a zero-length object is not allowed anymore by i915 and thus it is
> > not possible to execute it. The remaining part checks that creation of
> > a zero-length object does indeed fail, which is also checked by
> > gem_create/create-invalid-size.
> > The only difference between the 2 tests is that gem_bad_length checks
> > specifically for EINVAL while create-invalid-size only looks for
> > failure, so after adding the EINVAL check to create-invalid-size it is
> > safe to drop gem_bad_length.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  tests/Makefile.sources |   1 -
> >  tests/gem_bad_length.c | 133 -------------------------------------------------
> >  tests/gem_create.c     |   2 +-
> >  3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 135 deletions(-)
> >  delete mode 100644 tests/gem_bad_length.c
> > 
> > diff --git a/tests/Makefile.sources b/tests/Makefile.sources
> > index c4d320e..142ff2b 100644
> > --- a/tests/Makefile.sources
> > +++ b/tests/Makefile.sources
> > @@ -40,7 +40,6 @@ TESTS_progs = \
> >  	drv_module_reload \
> >  	drv_selftest \
> >  	drv_suspend \
> > -	gem_bad_length \
> >  	gem_bad_reloc \
> >  	gem_basic \
> >  	gem_busy \
> 
> 
> Squash in:

I already did that while separating the extension of testing coverage
in gem_create and removing the test to own patches. Didn't Cc: you
though as I didn't notice this earlier.

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