[PATCH v4 1/2] tests/intel/xe_fault_injection: Make pci_slot const
Cavitt, Jonathan
jonathan.cavitt at intel.com
Mon Jun 9 14:05:26 UTC 2025
-----Original Message-----
From: K V P, Satyanarayana <satyanarayana.k.v.p at intel.com>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 1:30 AM
To: Cavitt, Jonathan <jonathan.cavitt at intel.com>; igt-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: 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; K V P, Satyanarayana <satyanarayana.k.v.p at intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 1/2] tests/intel/xe_fault_injection: Make pci_slot const
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cavitt, Jonathan <jonathan.cavitt at intel.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, June 7, 2025 12:05 AM
> > To: igt-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> > Cc: Cavitt, Jonathan <jonathan.cavitt 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 v4 1/2] tests/intel/xe_fault_injection: Make pci_slot const
> >
> > The pci_slot string is passed to multiple functions in
> > xe_fault_injection. It is also unmodified in those functions, so should
> > be passed as a const.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cavitt <jonathan.cavitt at intel.com>
> > Suggested-by: John Harrison <john.c.harrison at intel.com>
> > ---
> > tests/intel/xe_fault_injection.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/intel/xe_fault_injection.c b/tests/intel/xe_fault_injection.c
> > index 9fe6bfe351..7a14ad1729 100644
> > --- a/tests/intel/xe_fault_injection.c
> > +++ b/tests/intel/xe_fault_injection.c
> > @@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ static void set_retval(const char function_name[],
> > long long retval)
> > * @xe_wopcm_init: xe_wopcm_init
> > */
> > static int
> > -inject_fault_probe(int fd, char pci_slot[], const char function_name[])
> > +inject_fault_probe(int fd, const char pci_slot[], const char function_name[])
> > {
> > int err = 0;
> > igt_info("Injecting error \"%s\" (%d) in function \"%s\"\n",
> > @@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ inject_fault_probe(int fd, char pci_slot[], const char
> > function_name[])
> > * @xe_guc_mmio_send_recv: Inject an error when calling
> > xe_guc_mmio_send_recv
> > * @xe_guc_ct_send_recv: Inject an error when calling
> > xe_guc_ct_send_recv
> > */
> > -static void probe_fail_guc(int fd, char pci_slot[], const char function_name[],
> > +static void probe_fail_guc(int fd, const char pci_slot[], const char
> > function_name[],
> > struct fault_injection_params *fault_params)
> > {
> > int iter_start = 0, iter_end = 0, iter = 0;
> > --
> Why to create a separate commit for this?
> Can't we add these changes in the other commit? I see pci_slot is added for many functions in other commit
> "tests/intel/xe_fault_injection: Ignore all errors while injecting fault" and this is also related to the same.
> Any specific reason to create this new commit?
Because it's not related to the other commit. We're just incidentally fixing the improper usage while we're here.
-Jonathan Cavitt
> -Satya.
> > 2.43.0
>
>
More information about the igt-dev
mailing list