From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] intel_error_decode: use 64b gtt_offset
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 17:54:10 -0700
Message-ID: <20140430005410.GA24177@bwidawsk.net>
References: <1398735784-7069-1-git-send-email-benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
 <1398735950-23760-1-git-send-email-benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
 <20140429085244.GK32404@phenom.ffwll.local>
 <20140429090110.GL32404@phenom.ffwll.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mail.bwidawsk.net (bwidawsk.net [166.78.191.112])
 by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1B8A6EB18
 for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 17:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140429090110.GL32404@phenom.ffwll.local>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
 <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
 <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
Sender: "Intel-gfx" <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Intel GFX <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>, Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:01:10AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 10:52:44AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 06:45:50PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > See the relevant kernel patch for the details. I guess this breaks
> > > support for older error state, I am not actually sure. Without
> > > versioning our error state though, I cannot think of a better way.
> > > Suggestions are welcome.
> > 
> > Just drop the length qualifier and let scanf it the full number?
> 
> Also, you know the drill: Testcase, please. A copy of drv_hangman to also
> feed the captured error state into intel_error_decode and check that it
> doesn't fall overr (exitcode != 0 and nothing on stderr). Maybe call it
> drv_error_decode or something like that.
> -Daniel

You're not going to get it from me. If you don't take the patch, that's
fine by me.

-- 
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center