[igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] i915/gem_exec_flush: Drop assertion the object is not moved

[Chris Wilson]

Each set of relocations track the content of their particular portion of
the batch, the presumed offset they use encode matches their own view.
It is legal for the object to be moved, and the execbuf will have to
relocation -- we can't just assert that the relocations were not
required as that is beyond our own control (unless we switch to
softpin).

Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/1097
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
---
 tests/i915/gem_exec_flush.c | 2 --
 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_exec_flush.c b/tests/i915/gem_exec_flush.c
index 778bc18c6..9b6f2ed19 100644
--- a/tests/i915/gem_exec_flush.c
+++ b/tests/i915/gem_exec_flush.c
@@ -251,8 +251,6 @@ static void run(int fd, unsigned ring, int nchild, int timeout,
 			i = 16 * (idx % 64) + (idx / 64);
 			obj[1].relocs_ptr = to_user_pointer(&reloc0[i]);
 			obj[2].relocs_ptr = to_user_pointer(&reloc1[i]);
-			igt_assert_eq_u64(reloc0[i].presumed_offset, obj[0].offset);
-			igt_assert_eq_u64(reloc1[i].presumed_offset, obj[0].offset);
 			execbuf.batch_start_offset =  64*i;
 
 overwrite:
-- 
2.25.0