[PATCH i-g-t] tests/intel/xe_sriov_flr: Handle missing provisioning data per-GT

[K V P, Satyanarayana]

On 22-08-2025 15:09, Marcin Bernatowicz wrote:
> When reading provisioned LMEM ranges from debugfs, some GTs may not
> expose provisioning data at all. Previously, this caused the test to
> skip entirely with a "Failed read" reason.
> 
> Relax the check to treat -ENOENT as a valid case and simply continue
> to the next GT. This ensures the test is not skipped unnecessarily
> when provisioning data is absent on some GTs.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marcin Bernatowicz <marcin.bernatowicz at linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Adam Miszczak <adam.miszczak at linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Jakub Kolakowski <jakub1.kolakowski at intel.com>
> Cc: Lukasz Laguna <lukasz.laguna at intel.com>
> Cc: Satyanarayana K V P <satyanarayana.k.v.p at intel.com>
> ---
>   tests/intel/xe_sriov_flr.c | 4 +++-
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/intel/xe_sriov_flr.c b/tests/intel/xe_sriov_flr.c
> index fc08703c0..9eebe5f71 100644
> --- a/tests/intel/xe_sriov_flr.c
> +++ b/tests/intel/xe_sriov_flr.c
> @@ -816,7 +816,9 @@ static int populate_vf_lmem_sizes(struct subcheck_data *data)
>   		ret = xe_sriov_pf_debugfs_read_provisioned_ranges(data->pf_fd,
>   								  XE_SRIOV_SHARED_RES_LMEM,
>   								  gt, &ranges, &nr_ranges);
Is it applicable only for LMEM? What about other provisioning 
parameters?> -		if (ret) {
> +		if (ret == -ENOENT) {
> +			continue;
Can we add a debug level print here with GT id?> +		} else if (ret) {
>   			set_skip_reason(data, "Failed read %s on gt%u (%d)\n",
>   					xe_sriov_debugfs_provisioned_attr_name(XE_SRIOV_SHARED_RES_LMEM),
>   					gt, ret);