[PATCH v3] tests/intel/xe_fault_injection: Ignore all errors while injecting fault

[Michal Wajdeczko]

On 04.06.2025 22:06, Cavitt, Jonathan wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cavitt, Jonathan <jonathan.cavitt at intel.com> 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2025 10:06 AM
> To: igt-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: Cavitt, Jonathan <jonathan.cavitt at intel.com>; Gupta, saurabhg <saurabhg.gupta at intel.com>; Zuo, Alex <alex.zuo at intel.com>; K V P, Satyanarayana <satyanarayana.k.v.p at intel.com>; Wajdeczko, Michal <Michal.Wajdeczko at intel.com>; Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele <daniele.ceraolospurio at intel.com>; De Marchi, Lucas <lucas.demarchi at intel.com>; Dugast, Francois <francois.dugast at intel.com>; Vivi, Rodrigo <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>; Harrison, John C <john.c.harrison at intel.com>; kamil.konieczny at linux.intel.com
> Subject: [PATCH v3] tests/intel/xe_fault_injection: Ignore all errors while injecting fault
>>
>> From: Satyanarayana K V P <satyanarayana.k.v.p at intel.com>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> However, we can safely assert that all dmesg reports that contain
>> *ERROR* in their message can be ignored, so add them to the dmesg ignore
>> list.  This unfortunately does not include the device probe error
>> itself, so that must be added separately.
> 
> You know, I just thought of something...
> Aren't we specifically injecting ENOMEM as a part of these tests?
> If we get anything other than ENOMEM as the errno return value, then
> that should be unexpected.  So, are we certain that we can safely ignore
> all error-level dmesg reports here?

our goal is to extend testing and inject more faults like in [1] so
different error messages will be showing up in dmesg

[1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/149501/