Hello Koichiro, thank you for your comment
On 3/19/26 02:28, Koichiro Den wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 03:46:27PM +0100, Christian Bruel wrote:
Handle -ENOSPC error. If the number of available inbound ATU entries is
insufficient to map the subrange, skip the test instead of failing.
Link:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20260317152707.GA85951@bhelgaas/T/#m87e4c24173097a0ea70195b71aab294ad8d6c283
Signed-off-by: Christian Bruel <[email protected]>
---
tools/testing/selftests/pci_endpoint/pci_endpoint_test.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/pci_endpoint/pci_endpoint_test.c
b/tools/testing/selftests/pci_endpoint/pci_endpoint_test.c
index
c417fb3a198b2d92c3060938c23807cc8bea5573..8ea2fda4539d11eb22b22800a7cb8bbaa99c91ba
100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/pci_endpoint/pci_endpoint_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/pci_endpoint/pci_endpoint_test.c
@@ -88,6 +88,8 @@ TEST_F(pci_ep_bar, BAR_SUBRANGE_TEST)
SKIP(return, "Subrange map is not supported");
if (ret == -ENOBUFS)
SKIP(return, "BAR is reserved");
+ if (ret == -ENOSPC)
+ SKIP(return, "Not enough ATU entries to allocate subrange");
Thank you for handling this!
pci_endpoint_test_bar_subrange() can also return -ENOSPC locally:
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v7.0-rc4/drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c#L538
While that is a different resource limit case, I think it would still be
reasonable to treat it as SKIP as well.
Regarding Niklas's feedback to use the local EINVAL instead of ENOSPC in
pci_endpoint_test_bar_subrange(), I prefer to leave this for you to
handle. That will cover this case.
If you agree and keep your current approach, then I think the SKIP message
might be better phrased more generically, e.g. "Insufficient resources".
OK I agree, the error message should be less specific to DWC
terminology, even though this case can currently only occur on it.
If you prefer to keep that local case as FAIL (or at least distinguish it
with a different SKIP message), that would likely require a bit more
changes overall. Note: Niklas' earlier feedback on the SKIP message would
still apply.
OK, as Niklas also suggested, I will not set an additional local bit
besides the fail bit. The question is whether we should name it SKIP or
NOSPC. I slightly prefer NOSPC, as this is what is used in the selftest
to indicate skipping.
thank you
Christian
Best regards,
Koichiro
EXPECT_FALSE(ret) TH_LOG("Test failed for BAR%d", variant->barno);
}
--
2.34.1
