From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: Allow overlapping userptr
	objects
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:08:30 +0100
Message-ID: <53CFCFEE.3090406@linux.intel.com>
References: <1405945284-24670-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
 <53CFB769.8000704@linux.intel.com>
 <20140723143422.GU15237@phenom.ffwll.local>
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 mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [143.182.124.21])
 by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20DD96E654
 for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140723143422.GU15237@phenom.ffwll.local>
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: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: "Volkin, Bradley D" <bradley.d.volkin@intel.com>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Akash Goel <akash.goel@intel.com>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org


On 07/23/2014 03:34 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 02:23:53PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>> I think it would be good to add some more tests to cover the tracking
>> "handover" between the interval tree and linear list to ensure invalidation
>> still works correctly in non-trivial cases. Code looks correct in that
>> respect but just in case. It is not a top priority so not sure when I'll
>> find time to actually do it.
>
> We don't yet have some tests with overlapping allocations? I think at
> least some basic smoke test should be there ...

We do have basic overlapping tests. I was talking about adding some more 
to exercise specific kernel paths which this patch adds. It switches 
between using a linear list and an interval tree to track ranges so just 
to make sure state remains correct under such transitions.

But you also reminded me now, IGT needs to be told overalap is now 
allowed...

Tvrtko