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

[Daniel Vetter]

On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 11:30:00PM +0200, 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.

Forgot to add Jesse.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch