[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t 03/12] tools/intel_gpu_top: Restore user friendly error message

[Umesh Nerlige Ramappa]

On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 02:44:28PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>
>We have a nice error message displayed when an user with insufficient
>permissions tries to run the tool, but that got lost while Meteorlake
>support was added. Bring it back in.
>
>Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>Cc: Umesh Nerlige Ramappa <umesh.nerlige.ramappa at intel.com>
>---
> tools/intel_gpu_top.c | 10 +++++++---
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/tools/intel_gpu_top.c b/tools/intel_gpu_top.c
>index 87e9681e53b4..e01355f90458 100644
>--- a/tools/intel_gpu_top.c
>+++ b/tools/intel_gpu_top.c
>@@ -554,9 +554,11 @@ static int get_num_gts(uint64_t type)
>
> 		close(fd);
> 	}
>-	assert(!errno || errno == ENOENT);
>-	assert(cnt > 0);
>-	errno = 0;
>+
>+	if (!cnt)
>+		cnt = errno;
>+	else
>+		errno = 0;

ENOENT is the only way this logic is checking for num_gts.

In this case error is propagated only if cnt == 0. What if cnt=1 and we 
get an error (other than ENOENT)? Should we ignore that?

I had something like this in mind for the regression (and sorry this 
fell through the cracks)

https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/541406/?series=118973&rev=1

Regards,
Umesh

>
> 	return cnt;
> }
>@@ -590,6 +592,8 @@ static int pmu_init(struct engines *engines)
> 	engines->fd = -1;
> 	engines->num_counters = 0;
> 	engines->num_gts = get_num_gts(type);
>+	if (engines->num_gts <= 0)
>+		return -1;
>
> 	engines->irq.config = I915_PMU_INTERRUPTS;
> 	fd = _open_pmu(type, engines->num_counters, &engines->irq, engines->fd);
>-- 
>2.39.2
>