Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> writes: > Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2020-02-05 14:03:14) >> Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> writes: >> >> > We have been using '-1' to mean the maximum i915.reset level in the >> > belief that it was unsigned... This turns out to have been a grave >> > error, and instead of setting the default reset mechanism in igt, >> > we have been disabling reset! >> >> Disabling engine reset? > > Hmm, Right, > > bool intel_has_gpu_reset(const struct intel_gt *gt) > { > if (!i915_modparams.reset) > return NULL; > > return intel_get_gpu_reset(gt); > } > > bool intel_has_reset_engine(const struct intel_gt *gt) > { > if (i915_modparams.reset < 2) > return false; > > return INTEL_INFO(gt->i915)->has_reset_engine; > } > > just engine-reset. Still that wasn't the intention when setting -1.
I was trying to correlate the graveness to the code. Glad that we agree. With commit message pointing to per engine reset, Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuopp...@linux.intel.com> > -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx