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

[Daniele Ceraolo Spurio]

On 6/2/2025 11:30 AM, Cavitt, Jonathan wrote:
> -----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

We are injecting an error, so some messages with the ERROR tag are 
expected and should be ignored. The question is whether we should ignore 
all of them or keep a list if expected ones and ignore just those ones.

We definitely can't ignore warnings or asserts, as those signal that 
something is going very wrong.

Daniele

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