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

[Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>]

On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 10:12:08AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 08:52:54AM +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.
> 
> If we do that,  I would actually create gem_create.c to do the parameter
> testing of CREATE, and rename this to gem_stolen.c as this covers the
> functional side of using stolen (i.e. not limited to testing the CREATE
> API). And I want a pink pony.

Yes, that would be even nicer.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx