Re: [PATCH i-g-t 4/3] tests/gem_ctx_param_basic: Expand ctx_param tests

From: David Weinehall <david.weinehall@linux.intel.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH i-g-t 4/3] tests/gem_ctx_param_basic: Expand ctx_param tests
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 17:53:17 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150528145317.GB4009@boom> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150527113210.GF8341@phenom.ffwll.local>

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 01:32:10PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> A simple functional test here which does:
> a) an execbuf with just 1 batch. With full ppgtt you should get that one
> at offset 0. If not, skip the testcase.
> b) set the NO_ZEROMAP property.
> c) re-run the same batch, assert that now the buffer is relocated to
> something non-0.
> 
> Just to make sure we have a bare minimal testcase to make sure we don't
> break this.

Maybe this should be added to another test rather than here?  This test
is described as a:

"Basic test for context set/get param input validation."

Somehow I feel that testing whether the *functionality* is correct
does not belong in this test, but rather in some test case that's
already related to execbufs, or even a dedicated test case.

But that might be over-engineering.  Opinions?

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