[igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t v2] i915/gem_exec_params: Cross-check getparam against engine execution

[Nirmoy Das]

From: Chris Wilson <chris.p.wilson at intel.com>

Do not just skip the test if getparam for bsd, blt, vebox passes.
Be more robust and compare result of getparam with a engine execution
which should give more test coverage.

v2: improve commit message and keep RUN_FAIL()(Kamil)

Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio at intel.com>
Cc: Kamil Konieczny <kamil.konieczny at linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris.p.wilson at intel.com>
Co-developed-by: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das at intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das at intel.com>
---
 tests/i915/gem_exec_params.c | 17 ++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_exec_params.c b/tests/i915/gem_exec_params.c
index 618635ec3..fd86afa16 100644
--- a/tests/i915/gem_exec_params.c
+++ b/tests/i915/gem_exec_params.c
@@ -411,24 +411,23 @@ igt_main
 	igt_subtest("mmapped")
 		mmapped(fd);
 
-#define RUN_FAIL(expected_errno) do { \
-		igt_assert_eq(__gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf), -expected_errno); \
-	} while(0)
+#define CHK_RUN(has_check, expected_errno) \
+		igt_assert_eq(__gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf), has_check(fd) ? 0 : -(expected_errno))
+#define RUN_FAIL(expected_errno) \
+		igt_assert_eq(__gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf), -(expected_errno))
+
 
 	igt_subtest("no-bsd") {
-		igt_require(!gem_has_bsd(fd));
 		execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_BSD;
-		RUN_FAIL(EINVAL);
+		CHK_RUN(gem_has_bsd, EINVAL);
 	}
 	igt_subtest("no-blt") {
-		igt_require(!gem_has_blt(fd));
 		execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_BLT;
-		RUN_FAIL(EINVAL);
+		CHK_RUN(gem_has_blt, EINVAL);
 	}
 	igt_subtest("no-vebox") {
-		igt_require(!gem_has_vebox(fd));
 		execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_VEBOX;
-		RUN_FAIL(EINVAL);
+		CHK_RUN(gem_has_vebox, EINVAL);
 	}
 	igt_subtest("invalid-ring") {
 		execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_RING_MASK;
-- 
2.39.0