On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:43:14 +0100, Pekka Paalanen <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 18:31:42 +0100
"Ben Avison" <[email protected]> wrote:
a) skip the test if the page size is too large (i.e. treat this as an
error condition
So a skip or an error? Error wouldn't be nice for Oded, since he
wouldn't be able to have 'make check' pass on his PPC boxes. Would be
rude to dump this on him.
Sorry, I meant error in the sense of don't attempt to continue with this
specific test. I was considering a skip as a specific case of an error
return code.
Anyway, the case we are considering here is when fencing is not
available. I cannot tell what platform that would be, I assume it to be
very rare. IMHO skipping the whole cover-test on such platforms is not
that bad. And it's more an OS feature than CPU instruction set - all
asm paths we have someone can test on fence-supporting platforms, right?
I'm not sure which platforms they had in mind, but it occurs to me that
something like an ARM Cortex-R CPU probably wouldn't have the flexibility
to support the necessary number of fence regions, so it's probably just
as well to retain the switch. As you say, the same assembly code can be
proved using a higher-end CPU though.
Ben
_______________________________________________
Pixman mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
