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) so extensibility for more testing seems fine. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
