Re: [PATCH 1/3] tests/gem_userptr_blits: Expanded userptr test cases

[Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>]

On 04/18/2014 06:10 PM, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 04:13:04AM -0700, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>>
>> A set of userptr test cases to support the new feature.
>>
>> For the eviction and swapping stress testing I have extracted
>> some common behaviour from gem_evict_everything and made both
>> test cases use it to avoid duplicating the code.
>>
>> Both unsynchronized and synchronized userptr objects are
>> tested but the latter set of tests will be skipped if kernel
>> is compiled without MMU_NOTIFIERS.
>>
>> Also, with 32-bit userspace swapping tests are skipped if
>> the system has a lot more RAM than process address space.
>> Forking swapping tests are not skipped since they can still
>> trigger swapping by cumulative effect.
>>
>> v2:
>>     * Fixed dmabuf test.
>>     * Added test for rejecting read-only.
>>     * Fixed ioctl detection for latest kernel patch.
>>
>> v3:
>>     * Updated copy() for Gen8+.
>>     * Fixed ioctl detection on kernels without MMU_NOTIFIERs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>
> A number of the comments I made on patch 3 apply here as well.
> The sizeof(linear) thing is more prevalent in this test, though
> it looks like linear is at least used. Other than those comments
> this looks good to me.

Believe it or not that sizeof(linear) "idiom" I inherited from other 
blitter tests. Personally I don't care one way or another. But since it 
makes sense to get rid of it for the benchmark part, perhaps I should 
change it here as well to be consistent. How strongly do you feel 
strongly about this?

Will see what you reply on the static initializer comment it 3/3, not 
sure what you meant there.

Thanks,

Tvrtko