[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] i915/gem_eio: Not everyone actually has contexts

[Antonio Argenziano]

On 21/02/19 02:01, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Eek, I assumed the 'banned' subtest only applied to context platforms,
> ti doesn't. The basic test works for all, checking whether a second
    ^--- Typo? :).
> context works after the first is banned however only applies to
> platforms with contexts!
> 

Yeah, I missed that.

> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> ---
>   tests/i915/gem_eio.c | 12 ++++++------
>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_eio.c b/tests/i915/gem_eio.c
> index c5fd07585..3f941071d 100644
> --- a/tests/i915/gem_eio.c
> +++ b/tests/i915/gem_eio.c
> @@ -334,13 +334,13 @@ static void __test_banned(int fd)
>   
>   			/* Only this context, not the file, should be banned */
>   			igt_assert_neq(__gem_context_create(fd, &ctx), -EIO);
> -			igt_assert_neq(ctx, 0);

Although this assert seems to suggest it didn't apply to context-less 
platforms as it would fail here.

I think it still makes sense to test you get banned on context 0 so,
Reviwed-by: Antonio Argenziano <antonio.argenziano at intel.com>

> -
> -			/* And check it actually works! */
> -			execbuf.rsvd1 = ctx;
> -			gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf);
> +			if (ctx) { /* remember the contextless! */
> +				/* And check it actually works! */
> +				execbuf.rsvd1 = ctx;
> +				gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf);
>   
> -			gem_context_destroy(fd, ctx);
> +				gem_context_destroy(fd, ctx);
> +			}
>   			return;
>   		}
>   
>