Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-06-27 14:59:10)
>
> On 27/06/2019 14:06, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >> + VG(VALGRIND_MAKE_MEM_DEFINED(&fence_info, sizeof(fence_info)));
> >
> > More fun would be to
> >
> > struct sync_fence_info fence_info = { .status = -ENOSYS };
> >
> > So that valgrind knows it is initialised and we reliably report an error
> > if the kernel fails to fill in the struct.
>
> ... sure, this is also okay. For me -ENOSYS is not strictly needed at
> this level. It would be more of a unit test for the ioctl, not belonging
> to the library helper, but it is also fine to inject some more explicit
> trash so it can be caught even if there are no specific unit tests.
>
> I don't also see a problem with Valgrind annotation. It doesn't hide
> anything, nor does it sanitises. But yes, it is not needed if we go for
> -ENOSYS trick.
That's all I was thinking, two birds one stone. I think it is a bonus if
we don't paper over the kernel randomly serving up garbage -- but at the
same time random failures are not the easiest to debug. But at least they
serve as canaries.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
