On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 :) That approaches a turing test, so a bit out of scope for igt ;-) -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
