Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2019-10-29 13:35:48)
> > diff --git a/tests/i915/i915_module_load.c b/tests/i915/i915_module_load.c
> > index f42083f53..7d9a5cfd2 100644
> > --- a/tests/i915/i915_module_load.c
> > +++ b/tests/i915/i915_module_load.c
> > @@ -350,11 +350,17 @@ igt_main
> > }
> >
> > igt_subtest("reload-with-fault-injection") {
> > + const char *param;
> > int i = 0;
> >
> > igt_i915_driver_unload();
> >
> > - while (inject_fault("i915", "inject_load_failure", +
> +i) == 0)
> > + param = "inject_probe_failure";
> > + if (!igt_kmod_has_param("i915", param))
> > + param = "inject_load_failure";
> > + igt_require(igt_kmod_has_param("i915", param));
> > +
> > + while (inject_fault("i915", param, ++i) == 0)
> > ;
>
> My first thought was to just retry the loop with the old parameter name if the
> new one fails but I'm OK with your approach (maybe there will be other users
> of the new library helper). In case R-b is needed, please tell me.
I first did the repeated loop as well. I thought people might object to
that as being a little too hacky :)
There's a few more places were we might want to use param probing --
currently we try and ignore modparams as ABI as much as possible!
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
