[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] igt/gem_create_stolen: Verifying extended gem_create ioctl

[Daniel Vetter]

On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 10:54:26AM +0530, Ankitprasad Sharma wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 08:52 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 03:51:52PM +0530, ankitprasad.r.sharma at intel.com wrote:
> > > From: Ankitprasad Sharma <ankitprasad.r.sharma at intel.com>
> > > 
> > > This patch adds the testcases for verifying the new extended
> > > gem_create ioctl. By means of this extended ioctl, memory
> > > placement of the GEM object can be specified, i.e. either
> > > shmem or stolen memory.
> > > These testcases include functional tests and interface tests for
> > > testing the gem_create ioctl call for stolen memory placement
> > > 
> > > v2: Testing pread/pwrite functionality for stolen backed objects,
> > > added local struct for extended gem_create and gem_get_aperture,
> > > until headers catch up (Chris)
> > > 
> > > v3: Removed get_aperture related functions, extended gem_pread
> > > to compare speeds for user pages with and without page faults,
> > > unexposed local_gem_create struct, changed gem_create_stolen
> > > usage (Chris)
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Ankitprasad Sharma <ankitprasad.r.sharma at intel.com>
> > 
> > An igt to check for invalid arguments of the gem create ioctl (especially
> > the newly added flags parameters) seems to be missing.
> > -Daniel
> 
> \Wwe already have a test to check invalid arguments for the newly added
> flags parameter in the current set of tests.
> 
> static void invalid_flag_test(int fd)

Oh right I totally missed that. Especially for future extension I think
Chris' idea to split up tests sounds really good, i.e.

gem_create/invalid-flags (the one testcase I didn't spot)
gem_stolen/<all the other tests>

Otherwise the next person extending gem_create will miss your
invalid-flags test for it.
Thanks, Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch