[PATCH i-g-t v2 2/2] tests/intel: check drmModeGetConnector() return in i915_pm_rpm

[Luca Coelho]

On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 16:39 +0200, Kamil Konieczny wrote:
> Hi Luca,
> On 2024-05-30 at 00:45:12 +0300, Luca Coelho wrote:
> > On Wed, 2024-05-29 at 18:37 +0200, Kamil Konieczny wrote:
> > > Hi Luca,
> > > On 2024-05-28 at 10:58:55 +0300, Luca Coelho wrote:
> > > 
> > > this subject imho is too long:
> > > 
> > > [PATCH i-g-t v2 2/2] tests/intel: check drmModeGetConnector() return in i915_pm_rpm
> > > 
> > > It should have test name at begin, not at end:
> > > 
> > > tests/intel/i915_pm_rpm: Fix bug in init_mode_set_data()
> > > 
> > > or
> > > 
> > > tests/intel/i915_pm_rpm: check drmModeGetConnector() before use
> > > 
> > > or find out something better.
> > 
> > This is the same as in the previous patch.  So, just tell me which one
> > of your options you want me to use and I'll do it.  No need to bike-
> > shed on this here.
> > 
> > 
> > > > The drmModeGetConnector() function can return NULL in some cases, so
> > > > we need to check the return value before accessing it.  This is not
> > > > being checked in init_mode_set_data(), so fix that.
> > > 
> > > Please cite few lines from bug report:
> > > 
> > > Starting subtest: module-reload
> > > Received signal SIGSEGV.
> > > Stack trace: 
> > > #0 [fatal_sig_handler+0x10f]
> > > #1 [killpg+0x40]
> > > #2 [setup_environment+0x33f]
> > 
> > This is one click away, in the link I added below, but I see the
> 
> It is better to give such info here in patch itself,
> especially as this is needed for reproduction.

I agree that sometimes it is.  But this excerpt looks mostly like noise
to me.  The only significant words there are "module-reload" and
"SIGSEGV".

--
Cheers,
Luca.