On 2/22/2022 17:39, Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele wrote:
On 2/11/2022 5:04 PM, John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>
It is possible for reset notifications to arrive for a context that is
in the process of being banned. So don't flag these as an error, just
report it as informational (because it is still useful to know that
resets are happening even if they are being ignored).
v2: Better wording for the message (review feedback from Tvrtko).
Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
index b3a429a92c0d..3afff24b8f24 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
@@ -4022,10 +4022,10 @@ static void guc_handle_context_reset(struct
intel_guc *guc,
capture_error_state(guc, ce);
guc_context_replay(ce);
} else {
- drm_err(&guc_to_gt(guc)->i915->drm,
- "Invalid GuC engine reset notificaion for 0x%04X on %s:
banned = %d, blocked = %d",
- ce->guc_id.id, ce->engine->name,
intel_context_is_banned(ce),
- context_blocked(ce));
+ drm_info(&guc_to_gt(guc)->i915->drm,
+ "Ignoring context reset notification for 0x%04X on %s:
banned = %d, blocked = %d",
The if statement above checks for !banned, so if we're here we're
banned for sure, no need to print it as if it was conditional. I'd
reword it as something like: "Ignoring reset notification for banned
context 0x%04X ...". With that:
Hmm. The patch was based on an older tree that had an extra term in the
if. Seems like the patch applied cleanly and I didn't check the
surrounding code! Will update it to drop the banned and blocked values.
John.
Reviewed-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx>
Daniele
+ ce->guc_id.id, ce->engine->name,
intel_context_is_banned(ce),
+ context_blocked(ce));
}
}
