On ti, 2016-03-15 at 14:14 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 04:01:14PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote: > > > > I'm not sure if you want to check all failure paths, I think for that > > the existing failslab etc. mechanisms are better suited. This new > > option would be used at relatively few well defined places. The option > > is a mask since Chris wanted the possibility to mix failures (which > > makes sense when injecting a non-fatal failure somewhere). If he > > doesn't insist on that possibility I can convert the mask option to a > > counter based one identifying a single failure spot instead as you > > suggest. Chris? > We can extend the counter mechanism by having multiple counters behind > i915.inject_load_failure (i.e. =gem:4,driver:10,modeset:1) Now that there's a series to split down the init functions nicely, one could use the function names directly. By stripping parts of it if needed to shorten them. Regards, Joonas > so extensibility for more testing seems fine. > -Chris > -- Joonas Lahtinen Open Source Technology Center Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
