Re: [PATCH i-g-t] Revert "tests/gem_ctx_param_basic: fix invalid params"

[David Weinehall <david.weinehall@linux.intel.com>]

On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 10:04:47AM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> 2015-08-06 18:33 GMT-03:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>:
> > This reverts commit 0b45b0746f45deea11670a8b2c949776bbbef55c.
> >
> > The point of testing for LAST_FLAG + 1 is to catch abi extensions -
> > despite our best efforts we really suck at properly reviewing for test
> > coverage when extending ABI.
> >
> > The real bug here is that David Weinhall hasn't submitted updated igts
> > for the NO_ZEROMAP feature yet. Imo the right course of action is to
> > revert that feature if the testcase don't show up within a few days.
> >
> > Cc: David Weinehall <david.weinehall@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c b/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c
> > index 5ff3b13f4c7a..b44b37cf0538 100644
> > --- a/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c
> > +++ b/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c
> > @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ igt_main
> >                 ctx_param.size = 0;
> >         }
> >
> > -       ctx_param.param  = -1;
> > +       ctx_param.param  = LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_BAN_PERIOD + 1;
> 
> How about adding a comment somewhere "If this breaks it's because we
> extended the number of params without updating IGT. Please add the
> proper tests for the new param"? That will help preventing us from
> making the same error again next year.

Good idea!


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