Quoting Chris Wilson (2020-07-06 15:10:02)
> Quoting Michał Winiarski (2020-07-06 15:01:25)
> > From: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > It is not really unexpected to hit wedge on init this way.
> > We're already downgrading error printk when running with fault injection,
> > let's use the same approach for CI tainting.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Petri Latvala <petri.latvala@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.h | 4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.h
> > index 82fada1e7552..d84c23592942 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.h
> > @@ -438,7 +438,9 @@ static inline const char *enableddisabled(bool v)
> >
> > static inline void __add_taint_for_CI(unsigned int taint)
> > {
> > - add_taint(taint, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);
> > + /* Failures that occur during fault injection testing are expected */
> > + if (!i915_error_injected())
> > + add_taint(taint, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);
> > }
>
> And I think this is better in add_taint_for_CI(). If we hit the
> GEM_BUG_ON() we should always add the taint, as that trace dump is a
> one-shot affair.
So if you agree, make add_taint_for_CI out-of-line and it there, and you
can have a
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
straight away :)
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
