Re: [PATCH] selftests: pci: pci-selftest: add support for PCI endpoint driver test

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 12/23/22 08:02, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 10:49:48AM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
On 12/22/22 10:45, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 09:58:30AM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
On 10/6/22 23:39, Aman Gupta wrote:
This patch enables the support to perform selftest on PCIe endpoint
driver present in the system. The following tests are currently
performed by the selftest utility

1. BAR Tests (BAR0 to BAR5)
2. MSI Interrupt Tests (MSI1 to MSI32)
3. Read Tests (For 1, 1024, 1025, 1024000, 1024001 Bytes)
4. Write Tests (For 1, 1024, 1025, 1024000, 1024001 Bytes)
5. Copy Tests (For 1, 1024, 1025, 1024000, 1024001 Bytes)

Signed-off-by: Aman Gupta <aman1.gupta@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Padmanabhan Rajanbabu <p.rajanbabu@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Adding Bjorn Helgaas to the thread.

Adding pcit test under selftests is good. There is another pcitest
under tools/pci. I would like to see if the existing code in
tools/pci/pcitest.c can be leveraged.

As part of this test work, also look into removing tools/pci so
we don't have to maintain duplicate code in two places.


It has been agreed in a thread with Greg [1] to {re}move the tests under
tools/pci and utilize the kselftest.


Inline with what I am suggesting. However, I don't see either move or
delete of tools/pci in the patch?

The first patch could start with git mv of the existing files and then
make changes to preserver the history.


Right. This patch was posted independently of the series [1] that I submitted to
fix the return values of IOCTL calls used in drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c
driver.

Then in that series, it was decided to move the existing test to kselftest. So,
I suggested Aman Gupta [2] to integrate my latest patches, add the kselftest
patch on top, then remove the existing test under tools/pci.

The kselftest patch can also move the driver first and then make the change as
you suggested. Either way it is fine by me.


As I mentioned in my previous email, I prefer to see the move as the first
patch and then changes on top. This preserves the history and cleaner.

thanks,
-- Shuah






[Index of Archives]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux