From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] tests/gem_userptr_benchmark:
 Benchmarking userptr surfaces and impact
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:08:56 +0100
Message-ID: <5358D4A8.1060107@linux.intel.com>
References: <1393431465-31630-1-git-send-email-tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
 <1398271115-19038-1-git-send-email-tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
 <1398271115-19038-3-git-send-email-tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
 <20140423171749.GD23344@bdvolkin-ubuntu-desktop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24])
 by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD6AD6EBE8
 for <Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 02:09:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140423171749.GD23344@bdvolkin-ubuntu-desktop>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
 <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
 <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
Sender: "Intel-gfx" <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
To: "Volkin, Bradley D" <bradley.d.volkin@intel.com>
Cc: Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org


On 04/23/2014 06:17 PM, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
[snip]
>> +static int gem_userptr(int fd, void *ptr, int size, int read_only, uint32_t *handle)
>> +{
>> +	struct local_i915_gem_userptr userptr;
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	userptr.user_ptr = (uintptr_t)ptr;
>> +	userptr.user_size = size;
>> +	userptr.flags = userptr_flags;
>> +	if (read_only)
>> +		userptr.flags |= LOCAL_I915_USERPTR_READ_ONLY;
>> +
>> +	ret = drmIoctl(fd, LOCAL_IOCTL_I915_GEM_USERPTR, &userptr);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		ret = errno;
>> +	igt_skip_on_f(ret == ENODEV &&
>> +		      (userptr_flags & LOCAL_I915_USERPTR_UNSYNCHRONIZED) == 0,
>> +		      "Skipping, synchronized mappings with no kernel CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER?");
>
> I missed it the first time around, but the condition here doesn't
> match the other test; it's missing the '&& !read_only'. It looks
> like read_only will always be 0 in this test though, so probably
> not an issue.
>
> Reviewed-by: Brad Volkin <bradley.d.volkin@intel.com>

Good catch! It does not matter in the benchmark but I've sent a respin 
for consistency and clarity.

Thanks,

Tvrtko