Re: [PATCH i-g-t 4/3] tests/gem_ctx_param_basic: Expand ctx_param tests

From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
	intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH i-g-t 4/3] tests/gem_ctx_param_basic: Expand ctx_param tests
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 09:52:52 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150529075252.GK8341@phenom.ffwll.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150528145317.GB4009@boom>

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 05:53:17PM +0300, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 01:32:10PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > A simple functional test here which does:
> > a) an execbuf with just 1 batch. With full ppgtt you should get that one
> > at offset 0. If not, skip the testcase.
> > b) set the NO_ZEROMAP property.
> > c) re-run the same batch, assert that now the buffer is relocated to
> > something non-0.
> > 
> > Just to make sure we have a bare minimal testcase to make sure we don't
> > break this.
> 
> Maybe this should be added to another test rather than here?  This test
> is described as a:
> 
> "Basic test for context set/get param input validation."
> 
> Somehow I feel that testing whether the *functionality* is correct
> does not belong in this test, but rather in some test case that's
> already related to execbufs, or even a dedicated test case.
> 
> But that might be over-engineering.  Opinions?

Yeah separate testcase would fit better, agreed.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx