[PATCH i-g-t] tests/intel/xe_fault_injection: Ignore all errors while injecting fault

[Cavitt, Jonathan]

-----Original Message-----
From: Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele <daniele.ceraolospurio at intel.com> 
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 11:26 AM
To: Wajdeczko, Michal <Michal.Wajdeczko at intel.com>; K V P, Satyanarayana <satyanarayana.k.v.p at intel.com>; igt-dev at lists.freedesktop.org; De Marchi, Lucas <lucas.demarchi at intel.com>
Cc: Dugast, Francois <francois.dugast at intel.com>; Cavitt, Jonathan <jonathan.cavitt at intel.com>; Harrison, John C <john.c.harrison at intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH i-g-t] tests/intel/xe_fault_injection: Ignore all errors while injecting fault
> 
> On 5/29/2025 1:29 PM, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> >
> > On 29.05.2025 18:23, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote:
> >>
> >> On 5/29/2025 6:31 AM, Satyanarayana K V P wrote:
> >>> Currently, numerous fault messages have been included in the dmesg
> >>> ignore list,
> >>> and this list continues to expand. Each time a new fault injection
> >>> point is
> >>> introduced or a new feature is activated, additional fault messages
> >>> appear,
> >>> making it cumbersome to manage the dmesg ignore list.
> >>>
> >>> This new patch automatically ignores all error messages from dmesg,
> >>> eliminating
> >>> the need to add or maintain a dmesg ignore message list.
> >> This would make the test almost meaningless. If the test finds an actual
> >> bug (i.e., an error we didn't expect), how would CI detect and report it
> > but how can you tell upfront, without actually running a test, which
> > error is expected and which is not?
> >
> >> if all errors are ignored? The only situations we would still fail on is
> >> when the kernel just dies.
> > and that perfectly fins, sine we should look only for BUG and WARNs, as
> > it's quite natural and expected that once we inject an error, the driver
> > will likely fail to load or proceed, and/or may report some error
> > messages, or even try to silently recover, *but* it shouldn't ever crash
> >
> > and that should be taken as a test goal, not that we look for specific
> > error messages that could be changed, omitted, replaced by the different
> > driver release or when running on different platform or function
> 
> The patch does not look for WARNs though, it ignores all errors with a 
> "*" filter, even WARNs. I'm still not fully convinced about ignoring 
> anything, but I can understand the POV of ignoring just messages with 
> the "ERROR" tag, as suggested in the other replies. I'd be happy with 
> that kind of solution.

Huh?  I thought the alignment was that we were to ignore all messages
that *don't* have the ERROR tag, not the other way around?
-Jonathan Cavitt

> 
> Daniele
> 
> >
> > Michal
> >
> >> Daniele
> >>
> 
>