[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