On 04/23/2014 06:17 PM, Volkin, Bradley D wrote: [snip]
+static int gem_userptr(int fd, void *ptr, int size, int read_only, uint32_t *handle) +{ + struct local_i915_gem_userptr userptr; + int ret; + + userptr.user_ptr = (uintptr_t)ptr; + userptr.user_size = size; + userptr.flags = userptr_flags; + if (read_only) + userptr.flags |= LOCAL_I915_USERPTR_READ_ONLY; + + ret = drmIoctl(fd, LOCAL_IOCTL_I915_GEM_USERPTR, &userptr); + if (ret) + ret = errno; + igt_skip_on_f(ret == ENODEV && + (userptr_flags & LOCAL_I915_USERPTR_UNSYNCHRONIZED) == 0, + "Skipping, synchronized mappings with no kernel CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER?");I missed it the first time around, but the condition here doesn't match the other test; it's missing the '&& !read_only'. It looks like read_only will always be 0 in this test though, so probably not an issue. Reviewed-by: Brad Volkin <bradley.d.vol...@intel.com>
Good catch! It does not matter in the benchmark but I've sent a respin for consistency and clarity.
Thanks, Tvrtko _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
