On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 11:04:28AM +0100, Christian Bruel wrote: > 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.
So could you consider the following tiny patch as a prerequisite for your series? https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/[email protected]/ > > > > > 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. Yes, I agree. As mentioned in my reply to Niklas, the other -ENOSPC is better replaced with -EINVAL, so I just submitted a tiny patch. That concern should be resolved. > > > > > 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. Personally, Niklas' "errno in struct pci_epf_test_reg" idea sounds the best among the options discussed so far. Best regards, Koichiro > > thank you > > Christian > > > > > Best regards, > > Koichiro > > > > > EXPECT_FALSE(ret) TH_LOG("Test failed for BAR%d", > > > variant->barno); > > > } > > > > > > -- > > > 2.34.1 > > > >
