It's helpful to include "i-g-t" in the subject line for intel-gpu-tools patches so that they are easily identified. This can be done by using the --subject-prefix "PATCH i-g-t" option when using git format-patch or send-email and can also be set as a local configuration option using the following command: git config format.subjectprefix "PATCH i-g-t"
On 17 September 2015 at 17:41, Jesse Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > This subtest is trying to set the no-zeromap flag on the context without > root privs. Rather than expecting an EPERM on what's presumably a > nonzero value, we should expect success on a set call w/o root privs. > This looks like a copy & paste error from when the subtest was added, > since setting the ban period has different expected behavior. There is already a patch for this: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/58991/ I was waiting for confirmation on the expected behaviour, but also testing both root and non-root for success seems a bit redundant. Perhaps removing the root-set test would be worthwhile. > > Cc: David Weinehall <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes <[email protected]> > --- > tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c b/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c > index 6a1694d..f7d9592 100644 > --- a/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c > +++ b/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c > @@ -126,8 +126,8 @@ igt_main > > ctx_param.context = ctx; > TEST_SUCCESS(LOCAL_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CONTEXT_GETPARAM); > - ctx_param.value--; > - TEST_FAIL(LOCAL_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CONTEXT_SETPARAM, > EPERM); > + ctx_param.value = 0; > + TEST_SUCCESS(LOCAL_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CONTEXT_SETPARAM); > } > > igt_waitchildren(); > -- > 1.9.1 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
