Quoting Chris Wilson (2020-07-06 15:10:02) > 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.
So if you agree, make add_taint_for_CI out-of-line and it there, and you can have a Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]> straight away :) -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
