Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt] igt/kms_frontbuffer_tracking: Drop unsynchronized pageflip test

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:43:27AM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:20:51PM +0200, Petri Latvala wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 08:05:19AM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > A raw pageflip is nonblocking and asynchronous, but > > > kms_frontbuffer_tracking persumed that it

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt] igt/kms_frontbuffer_tracking: Drop unsynchronized pageflip test

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:20:51PM +0200, Petri Latvala wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 08:05:19AM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > > A raw pageflip is nonblocking and asynchronous, but > > kms_frontbuffer_tracking persumed that it was synchronous and completed > > before the funtion returns. It

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt] igt/kms_frontbuffer_tracking: Drop unsynchronized pageflip test

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 08:05:19AM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > A raw pageflip is nonblocking and asynchronous, but > kms_frontbuffer_tracking persumed that it was synchronous and completed > before the funtion returns. It doesn't, so the CRC could be sampled > before the flip completed. > >

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt] igt/kms_frontbuffer_tracking: Drop unsynchronized pageflip test

A raw pageflip is nonblocking and asynchronous, but kms_frontbuffer_tracking persumed that it was synchronous and completed before the funtion returns. It doesn't, so the CRC could be sampled before the flip completed. Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson ---