On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 10:00:30PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 07:51:30PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote: > > On 11/29/24 18:24, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > IOCTLs are supposed to return 0 for success and negative error codes for > > > failure. Currently, this driver is returning 0 for failure and 1 for > > > success, that's not correct. Hence, fix it! > > > > > > Reported-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/YvzNg5ROnxEApDgS@xxxxxxxxx > > > Fixes: 2c156ac71c6b ("misc: Add host side PCI driver for PCI test function device") > > > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Looks OK to me. > > > > Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > One nit below. > > > > [...] > > > > > static void pci_endpoint_test_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev) > > > diff --git a/tools/pci/pcitest.c b/tools/pci/pcitest.c > > > index 470258009ddc..545e04ad63a2 100644 > > > --- a/tools/pci/pcitest.c > > > +++ b/tools/pci/pcitest.c > > > @@ -16,7 +16,6 @@ > > > > > > #include <linux/pcitest.h> > > > > > > -static char *result[] = { "NOT OKAY", "OKAY" }; > > > static char *irq[] = { "LEGACY", "MSI", "MSI-X" }; > > > > > > struct pci_test { > > > @@ -52,63 +51,65 @@ static int run_test(struct pci_test *test) > > > ret = ioctl(fd, PCITEST_BAR, test->barnum); > > > fprintf(stdout, "BAR%d:\t\t", test->barnum); > > > if (ret < 0) > > > - fprintf(stdout, "TEST FAILED\n"); > > > + fprintf(stdout, "NOT OKAY\n"); > > > else > > > - fprintf(stdout, "%s\n", result[ret]); > > > + fprintf(stdout, "OKAY\n"); > > > > Maybe replace all this "if (ret < 0) ... else ..." and all the ones below with > > something a call to: > > > > static void test_result(int ret) > > { > > fprintf(stdout, "%sOKAY\n", ret < 0 ? "NOT " : ""); > > } > > > > or simply with the call: > > > > fprintf(stdout, "%sOKAY\n", ret < 0 ? "NOT " : ""); > > > > to avoid all these repetition. > > > > Sounds good to me. Will incorporate in next version, thanks! > Maybe not. This test is converted to Kselftest in successive patches, so no need to simplify it. - Mani -- மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
