Quoting Michał Winiarski (2020-07-06 15:01:25) > From: Michał Winiarski <[email protected]> > > 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 <[email protected]> > Cc: Chris Wilson <[email protected]> > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <[email protected]> > Cc: Petri Latvala <[email protected]> > --- > 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. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
