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

David Weinehall
2015-05-28T14:54:38Z

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