[igt-dev] [PATCH v2] tests/syncobj_eventfd: new test

[Lionel Landwerlin]

On 12/07/2023 10:45, Simon Ser wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 12th, 2023 at 09:37, Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin at intel.com> wrote:
>
>> These tests look correct to me.
> Thanks for having a look!
>
>> Are you not planning on testing/supporting
>> DRM_SYNCOBJ_WAIT_FLAGS_WAIT_FOR_SUBMIT and DRM_SYNCOBJ_WAIT_FLAGS_WAIT_ALL ?
> DRM_SYNCOBJ_WAIT_FLAGS_WAIT_FOR_SUBMIT is implied: the IOCTL will never
> fail because a fence hasn't materialized. There is no use-case for this
> flag: if user-space wants this behavior they can try to extract a
> sync_file (which will fail if it hasn't materialized yet) and then poll
> that sync_file.
>
> DRM_SYNCOBJ_WAIT_FLAGS_WAIT_ALL doesn't make sense for this IOCTL
> because only a single syncobj is passed in.
>
> Simon

Thanks for clarifying.

Reviewed-by: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin at intel.com>