Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 5/5] tools/testing/scatterlist: Test new __sg_alloc_table_from_pages

2017-09-06 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-09-06 13:10:57) > > On 06/09/2017 11:48, Chris Wilson wrote: > > All ascending. Interesting challenge for 3,2,1,0; it can be coalesced, > > we just don't. I wonder if we are missing some like that. But for the > > Hm, how do you think descending pages could be

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 5/5] tools/testing/scatterlist: Test new __sg_alloc_table_from_pages

2017-09-06 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 06/09/2017 11:48, Chris Wilson wrote: Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-09-05 11:24:03) From: Tvrtko Ursulin Exercise the new __sg_alloc_table_from_pages API (and through it also the old sg_alloc_table_from_pages), checking that the created table has the expected

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 5/5] tools/testing/scatterlist: Test new __sg_alloc_table_from_pages

2017-09-06 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-09-05 11:24:03) > From: Tvrtko Ursulin > > Exercise the new __sg_alloc_table_from_pages API (and through > it also the old sg_alloc_table_from_pages), checking that the > created table has the expected number of segments depending on > the

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 5/5] tools/testing/scatterlist: Test new __sg_alloc_table_from_pages

2017-09-05 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
From: Tvrtko Ursulin Exercise the new __sg_alloc_table_from_pages API (and through it also the old sg_alloc_table_from_pages), checking that the created table has the expected number of segments depending on the sequence of input pages and other conditions. v2: Move to