[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/gem_exec_params: Update the invalid-flag subtest for FENCE_ARRAY

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 03:37:23PM -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> Tests for the new flag were added in 3685dabb0ab25eb1.
> 
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>

Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>

> ---
>  tests/gem_exec_params.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/gem_exec_params.c b/tests/gem_exec_params.c
> index ba6d67c..5b72072 100644
> --- a/tests/gem_exec_params.c
> +++ b/tests/gem_exec_params.c
> @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@
>  #define LOCAL_I915_EXEC_FENCE_IN (1 << 16)
>  #define LOCAL_I915_EXEC_FENCE_OUT (1 << 17)
>  #define LOCAL_I915_EXEC_BATCH_FIRST (1 << 18)
> +#define LOCAL_I915_EXEC_FENCE_ARRAY (1 << 19)
>  
>  static bool has_ring(int fd, unsigned ring_exec_flags)
>  {
> @@ -357,7 +358,7 @@ igt_main
>  		/* NOTE: This test intentionally exercise the next available
>  		 * flag. Don't "fix" this testcase without adding the required
>  		 * tests for the new flag first. */
> -		execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_RENDER | (LOCAL_I915_EXEC_BATCH_FIRST << 1);
> +		execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_RENDER | (LOCAL_I915_EXEC_FENCE_ARRAY << 1);
>  		RUN_FAIL(EINVAL);
>  	}
>  
> -- 
> 2.5.0.400.gff86faf
> 

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch