[Intel-gfx] [RFC i-g-t 5/6] tests/gem_concurrent_all: drop stolen memory related subtests

[Daniele Ceraolo Spurio]

On 03/10/17 04:11, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Daniele Ceraolo Spurio (2017-10-03 00:00:17)
>> The feature was never merged and there has been no progress in the
>> last year. The tests are currently excluded from compilation with and
>> ifdef.
>>
>> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio at intel.com>
>> ---
>>   tests/gem_concurrent_all.c | 35 -----------------------------------
>>   1 file changed, 35 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/gem_concurrent_all.c b/tests/gem_concurrent_all.c
>> index 201b491..87f2129 100644
>> --- a/tests/gem_concurrent_all.c
>> +++ b/tests/gem_concurrent_all.c
>> @@ -170,36 +170,6 @@ static void can_create_private(const struct create *create, unsigned count)
>>   }
>>   #endif
>>   
>> -#if HAVE_CREATE_STOLEN
>> -static drm_intel_bo *
>> -create_stolen_bo(drm_intel_bufmgr *bufmgr, uint64_t size)
>> -{
>> -       drm_intel_bo *bo;
>> -       uint32_t handle;
>> -
>> -       /* XXX gem_create_with_flags(fd, size, I915_CREATE_STOLEN); */
>> -
>> -       handle = gem_create(fd, size);
>> -       bo = gem_handle_to_libdrm_bo(bufmgr, fd, "stolen", handle);
>> -       gem_close(fd, handle);
>> -
>> -       return bo;
>> -}
>> -
>> -static void can_create_stolen(const struct create *create, unsigned count)
>> -{
>> -       /* XXX check num_buffers against available stolen */
>> -       igt_require(0);
>> -}
>> -#endif
>> -
>> -static void create_cpu_require(const struct create *create, unsigned count)
>> -{
>> -#if HAVE_CREATE_STOLEN
>> -       igt_require(create->create != create_stolen_bo);
>> -#endif
>> -}
>> -
>>   static drm_intel_bo *
>>   unmapped_create_bo(const struct buffers *b)
>>   {
>> @@ -208,7 +178,6 @@ unmapped_create_bo(const struct buffers *b)
>>   
>>   static void create_snoop_require(const struct create *create, unsigned count)
>>   {
>> -       create_cpu_require(create, count);
> 
> Pardon? It's about being descriptive of the requirements, for the snooping code paths,
> the bo must be cpu accessible.
> -Chris
> 

Would it be ok for you to just leave create_cpu_require() as an empty 
function or do you have something else in mind?

Thanks,
Daniele