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

[Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>]

On 08/06/2015 02:30 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:52:52AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 05:53:17PM +0300, David Weinehall wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> Yeah separate testcase would fit better, agreed.
> 
> Update version of this patch is still missing. I'll need to revert the
> kernel side if this one doesn't show up soonish.
> 
> Also you're breaking the invalid-flags testcase (did you bother to run
> them all and check for regressions?) which Jesse spotted, and with the new
> basic set this will be a P1 "I'm going to block everything" bug.

We really need man pages for new ioctls as well in libdrm.

Jesse

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