Quoting Jason Ekstrand (2017-08-09 19:49:34)
> This adds both trivial error-checking tests as well as more complex
> tests which actually test whether or not waits do what they're supposed
> to do. They only currently work on i915 but it should be simple to hook
> them up for other drivers by simp
Quoting Jason Ekstrand (2017-08-09 19:49:34)
> This adds both trivial error-checking tests as well as more complex
> tests which actually test whether or not waits do what they're supposed
> to do. They only currently work on i915 but it should be simple to hook
> them up for other drivers by simp
Quoting Jason Ekstrand (2017-08-09 18:46:49)
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Chris Wilson
> wrote:
>
> Quoting Jason Ekstrand (2017-08-09 18:04:42)
> > This adds both trivial error-checking tests as well as more complex
> > tests which actually test whether or not waits do what th
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Chris Wilson
wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Key tests missing here are signal (SIGINT) handling, especially how the
> timeout parameters is handled on repeats, see igt_interruptible(), though
> you must use igt_ioctl().
I'll see what I can do
> Polling multiple handles
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Chris Wilson
wrote:
> Quoting Jason Ekstrand (2017-08-09 18:04:42)
> > This adds both trivial error-checking tests as well as more complex
> > tests which actually test whether or not waits do what they're supposed
> > to do. They only currently work on i915 but
Hi Jason,
On 9 August 2017 at 18:04, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> +/* One one tenth of a second */
> +#define SHORT_TIME_NSEC 1ull
Er, a hundredth? Or only one, one tenth?
> +static void
> +test_wait_illegal_handle(int fd)
> +{
> + struct drm_syncobj_wait wait = { 0 };
> + uint32
Quoting Jason Ekstrand (2017-08-09 18:04:42)
> This adds both trivial error-checking tests as well as more complex
> tests which actually test whether or not waits do what they're supposed
> to do. They only currently work on i915 but it should be simple to hook
> them up for other drivers by simp
