[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/gem_exec_params: change flags used in invalid-flags test

[Daniel Vetter]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 04:14:03PM +0000, Gore, Tim wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gordon, David S
> > Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 4:04 PM
> > To: Gore, Tim; intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> > Cc: Wood, Thomas
> > Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/gem_exec_params: change flags
> > used in invalid-flags test
> >
> > On 12/01/15 14:09, tim.gore at intel.com wrote:
> > > From: Tim Gore <tim.gore at intel.com>
> > >
> > > The invalid-flags test in gem_exec_params uses (I915_EXEC_HANDLE_LUT
> > > << 1) as an invalid flag, but this is no longer invalid for recent
> > > android versions, and may not be invalid in Linux in the future. So I
> > > have changed this test to use (__I915_EXEC_UNKNOWN_FLAGS) instead.
> > > __I915_EXEC_UNKNOWN_FLAGS is defined in i915_drm.h as a mask of all
> > > the undefined flags.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Tim Gore <tim.gore at intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  tests/gem_exec_params.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tests/gem_exec_params.c b/tests/gem_exec_params.c index
> > > f63eda9..2a1c544 100644
> > > --- a/tests/gem_exec_params.c
> > > +++ b/tests/gem_exec_params.c
> > > @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ igt_main
> > >   /* HANDLE_LUT and NO_RELOC are already exercised by
> > > gem_exec_lut_handle */
> > >
> > >   igt_subtest("invalid-flag") {
> > > - execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_RENDER |
> > (I915_EXEC_HANDLE_LUT << 1);
> > > + execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_RENDER |
> > (__I915_EXEC_UNKNOWN_FLAGS);
> > >   RUN_FAIL(EINVAL);
> > >   }
> > >
> >
> > Should we perhaps have a test that iterates over each bit in this mask one at
> > a time (to check that EACH of them is correctly detected and
> > rejected) as well as this one with ALL the unknown flag bits set?
> >
> > .Dave.
>
> Yes, I can do that if people like the idea.

Well the testcase should still fail if the kernel is accepting any flags -
the idea is very much that every time you add a flag the test fails and
will remind you to add the new testcases for the new flag. So any patch
which makes LUT << 1 no longer fail the tests if it's not rejected is
nacked by me.

Imo you should just carry an igt patch in the android version somewhere to
adapt the testcase to your abi changes.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch