On Mon, 2012-10-15 at 23:28 +0100, Luís Picciochi Oliveira wrote: > On 15/10/2012, Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> wrote: > > gem_cs_tlb is harmless, the testcase itself isn't that robust and > > fails an internal self-check once a while when other things have > > happened - it should work if you run it alone. The > > gem_set_tiling_vs_pwrite is more unsettling - does that reliably fail > > with the little backport and reliably work on a kernel without that > > backport? Might be we miss another workaround. > > > > I'll double-check these tests on my own i915g meanwhile. > > More test results: > - without any of the patches: > gem_set_tiling_vs_pwrite passes > > - with: > c9c4b6f6c283 drm/i915: fix swizzle detection for gen3 > gem_set_tiling_vs_pwrite FAILs > > - with: > 7dd490658627 drm/i915: Mark untiled BLT commands as fenced on gen2/3 > (the first patch on that commit + the fix proposed on this thread)
This is the version that's under review for 3.2.y: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/bwh/linux-3.2.y-queue.git;a=blob_plain;f=queue-3.2/drm-i915-mark-untiled-blt-commands-as-fenced-on-gen2-3.patch;h=4ec2d388af7168d7bd659453e62dafd0f6b5e02b;hb=b6e32828805b35efce711f75f95f360770157f32 You can test what is due to become 3.2.32 by taking 3.2.31 and applying the patch in <[email protected]>, archived at http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1375450/raw > gem_set_tiling_vs_pwrite passes > 13 other tests fail [...] Do you mean that 13 tests regress? Or were some/all of those already failing? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings The world is coming to an end. Please log off.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
