From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] tests/gem_exec_parse: Test a command
 crossing a page boundary
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 14:20:04 +0100
Message-ID: <20140325132004.GE26878@phenom.ffwll.local>
References: <1385484699-51596-1-git-send-email-bradley.d.volkin@intel.com>
 <1391032710-19272-1-git-send-email-bradley.d.volkin@intel.com>
 <1391032710-19272-6-git-send-email-bradley.d.volkin@intel.com>
 <20140129221208.GL28110@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mail-ee0-f49.google.com (mail-ee0-f49.google.com [74.125.83.49])
 by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 016B56E27B
 for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 06:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ee0-f49.google.com with SMTP id c41so441225eek.8
 for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 06:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140129221208.GL28110@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
 <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
 <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
Sender: "Intel-gfx" <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, bradley.d.volkin@intel.com, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:12:08PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 01:58:30PM -0800, bradley.d.volkin@intel.com wrote:
> > From: Brad Volkin <bradley.d.volkin@intel.com>
> > 
> > This is a speculative test in that it's not particularly relevant
> > today, but is important if we switch the parser implementation to
> > use kmap_atomic instead of vmap.
> 
> Do you not want to iterate over all (or some combination of)
> valid/invalid commands to better fuzz the handling of boundaries?

I think we can look into that once we decide that kmap_atomic is indeed
the right way forward. This here seems good enough to at least have the
basics ready for a quick test.

Pulled in all six patches into igt, I think adding some of the additional
cases Chris suggested for invalid handling might be useful.

Thanks, Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch