On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 07:29:16PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Rafael Antognolli > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I finally got to work on these piglit tests (took longer than I > > expected). But here is an initial version, and I would like to know if > > I'm going on the right direction. Particularly I would like to know > > whether adding the sw_sync lib code that I copied mostly as is from > > intel-gpu-tools is acceptable/desirable. Also in order to use the > > sw_sync, one needs to be root on a regular linux distro. > > > > I'm still going to add all the tests for trying to create fences from > > invalid EGLDisplay, and things like that, but I should send those soon. > > > > Additionally, I also have a couple questions: > > > > 1) I don't see anywhere in the spec mentioning about creating a sync > > fence from an invalid fd (or an fd that is not a sync file), but should > > I test for it anyway? It looks like an error to me. > > hmm, interesting.. from a practical standpoint, I'm not sure there is > any good way to discover a bogus fence fd until we do submit/execbuf > ioctl. Which means it wouldn't be discovered until you did something > that triggered a flush. > > I guess on one hand, it is something easy for a user with fd > refcnt'ing issues to mess up. On the other hand, for non-debug > scenario's we wouldn't want to introduce extra overhead..
OK, got your point. > I wonder if there is some way we could add an ioctl on the fence fd to > return "are you a valid fence fd" without conflicting with ioctls on > unrelated fd's? I don't know, but I could take a look at that if it's really needed (and assuming nobody does it first). For now I'll just assume it's not necessary. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
