[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] Revert "tests/gem_ctx_param_basic: fix invalid params"

[Paulo Zanoni]

2015-08-06 18:33 GMT-03:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>:
> This reverts commit 0b45b0746f45deea11670a8b2c949776bbbef55c.
>
> The point of testing for LAST_FLAG + 1 is to catch abi extensions -
> despite our best efforts we really suck at properly reviewing for test
> coverage when extending ABI.
>
> The real bug here is that David Weinhall hasn't submitted updated igts
> for the NO_ZEROMAP feature yet. Imo the right course of action is to
> revert that feature if the testcase don't show up within a few days.
>
> Cc: David Weinehall <david.weinehall at linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at intel.com>
> ---
>  tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c b/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c
> index 5ff3b13f4c7a..b44b37cf0538 100644
> --- a/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c
> +++ b/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c
> @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ igt_main
>                 ctx_param.size = 0;
>         }
>
> -       ctx_param.param  = -1;
> +       ctx_param.param  = LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_BAN_PERIOD + 1;

How about adding a comment somewhere "If this breaks it's because we
extended the number of params without updating IGT. Please add the
proper tests for the new param"? That will help preventing us from
making the same error again next year.

>
>         igt_subtest("invalid-param-get") {
>                 ctx_param.context = ctx;
> --
> 2.5.0
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx



-- 
Paulo Zanoni