Re: [PATCH 8/9] misc: pci_endpoint_test: Give reserved BARs a distinct error code

[Niklas Cassel <cassel@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 10:30:39AM +0530, Manikanta Maddireddy wrote:
> 
> On 18/02/26 4:14 pm, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 06:07:30PM -0500, Frank Li wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 10:27:14PM +0100, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> > > > Give reserved BARs a distinct error code, such that the pci_endpoint_test
> > > > selftest will be able to skip test cases that are run against reserved
> > > > BARs.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Niklas Cassel <cassel@kernel.org>
> Tested by: Manikanta Maddireddy <mmaddireddy@nvidia.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >   drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > >   1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c b/drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c
> > > > index 74ab5b5b9011..7cffb6e77c4d 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c
> > > > @@ -84,6 +84,12 @@
> > > >   #define CAP_MSIX				BIT(2)
> > > >   #define CAP_INTX				BIT(3)
> > > >   #define CAP_SUBRANGE_MAPPING			BIT(4)
> > > > +#define CAP_BAR0_RESERVED			BIT(5)
> > > > +#define CAP_BAR1_RESERVED			BIT(6)
> > > > +#define CAP_BAR2_RESERVED			BIT(7)
> > > > +#define CAP_BAR3_RESERVED			BIT(8)
> > > > +#define CAP_BAR4_RESERVED			BIT(9)
> > > > +#define CAP_BAR5_RESERVED			BIT(10)
> > > > 
> > > >   #define PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST_DB_BAR		0x34
> > > >   #define PCI_ENDPOINT_TEST_DB_OFFSET		0x38
> > > > @@ -275,6 +281,23 @@ static int pci_endpoint_test_request_irq(struct pci_endpoint_test *test)
> > > >   	return ret;
> > > >   }
> > > > 
> > > > +static bool bar_is_reserved(struct pci_endpoint_test *test, enum pci_barno bar)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	if (bar == BAR_0 && test->ep_caps & CAP_BAR0_RESERVED)
> > > > +		return true;
> > > > +	else if (bar == BAR_1 && test->ep_caps & CAP_BAR1_RESERVED)
> > > > +		return true;
> > > > +	else if (bar == BAR_2 && test->ep_caps & CAP_BAR2_RESERVED)
> > > > +		return true;
> > > > +	else if (bar == BAR_3 && test->ep_caps & CAP_BAR3_RESERVED)
> > > > +		return true;
> > > > +	else if (bar == BAR_4 && test->ep_caps & CAP_BAR4_RESERVED)
> > > > +		return true;
> > > > +	else if (bar == BAR_5 && test->ep_caps & CAP_BAR5_RESERVED)
> > > > +		return true;
> > > 
> > > return	test->ep_caps & BIT(bar + CAP_BAR0_RESERVED)
> I think it should be
> return !!(test->ep_caps & BIT(bar + CAP_BAR0_RESERVED))

I don't think !! is needed:

"When any scalar value is converted to _Bool, the result is 0 if the value
compares equal to 0; otherwise, the result is 1."


Kind regards,
Niklas