On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:01:10AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 10:52:44AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 06:45:50PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > > See the relevant kernel patch for the details. I guess this breaks > > > support for older error state, I am not actually sure. Without > > > versioning our error state though, I cannot think of a better way. > > > Suggestions are welcome. > > > > Just drop the length qualifier and let scanf it the full number? > > Also, you know the drill: Testcase, please. A copy of drv_hangman to also > feed the captured error state into intel_error_decode and check that it > doesn't fall overr (exitcode != 0 and nothing on stderr). Maybe call it > drv_error_decode or something like that. Actually, I would have hoped you asked for uniformity in presenting and parsing 64bit values :) -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
