[igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 1/2] test/i915: gem_ctx_exec: Fix for using context engine map

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-11-19 11:24:17)
> 
> On 19/11/2019 11:08, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Venkata Sandeep Dhanalakota (2019-11-19 11:01:16)
> >> Since engines are now looked up based on context engine map,
> >> context should be setup with engines before using in execbuf.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 1a7f2e59 igt("gem_ctx_exec: use the gem_engine_topology"
> >>
> >> Cc: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti at intel.com>
> >> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> >> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Venkata Sandeep Dhanalakota <venkata.s.dhanalakota at intel.com>
> >> ---
> >>   tests/i915/gem_ctx_exec.c | 1 +
> >>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_ctx_exec.c b/tests/i915/gem_ctx_exec.c
> >> index 6c2cd922..2bf47cf2 100644
> >> --- a/tests/i915/gem_ctx_exec.c
> >> +++ b/tests/i915/gem_ctx_exec.c
> >> @@ -132,6 +132,7 @@ static void invalid_context(int fd, const struct intel_execution_engine2 *e,
> >>          gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf);
> >>   
> >>          ctx = gem_context_create(fd);
> >> +       gem_context_set_all_engines(fd, ctx);
> > 
> > Irrelevant.
> 
> I guess it is a bit, but it completes the test conversion to be correct. 
> You would want to split the legacy-vs-new engine selection in this one?

No, there shouldn't be a per-engine component to this test at all.
The way we have separated the context state is that it is akin to the
process state. Now whether or not the context has an engine is another
question (and answered elsewhere), the question is most certainly not
whether an engine has a context as is being asked here.
-Chris