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

Daniel Vetter
2015-05-29T07:50:24Z

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 05:53:17PM +0300, David Weinehall wrote:
> 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?

Yeah separate testcase would fit better, agreed.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation