On Tue, Nov 03, 2026 at 11:11:10AM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) > to consider: > - [Low] PCI: duplicated mock device setup in pci_acs_flags_enabled_test() > -- > > commit cd21c328560f2b4befdb418098279304a429237f > Author: Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]> > > PCI: Add KUnit coverage for ACS isolation checks > > This commit exposes pci_acs_flags_enabled() when KUnit is enabled and adds > KUnit tests in drivers/pci/pci_acs_test.c using mock config-space operations > to verify ACS isolation checks, missing capabilities, and failed config reads. > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci_acs_test.c b/drivers/pci/pci_acs_test.c > > index 18c697226762d..369444d2a04a0 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pci/pci_acs_test.c > > +++ b/drivers/pci/pci_acs_test.c > > @@ -103,10 +103,145 @@ static void pci_acs_p2pdma_completion_test(struct > > kunit *test) > > [ ... ] > > > +static void pci_acs_flags_enabled_test(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > + const struct acs_isolation_case *c = test->param_value; > > + struct acs_ctrl_cfg cfg = { > > + .devfn = PCI_DEVFN(0, 0), > > + .cap = ACS_TEST_CAP, > > + .ctrl = c->ctrl, > > + }; > > + struct pci_bus *bus = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*bus), GFP_KERNEL); > > + struct pci_dev *pdev = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*pdev), GFP_KERNEL); > > + > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(test, bus); > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(test, pdev); > > + > > + bus->ops = &acs_ctrl_ops; > > + bus->sysdata = &cfg; > > + > > + pdev->bus = bus; > > + pdev->devfn = cfg.devfn; > > + pdev->acs_cap = ACS_TEST_CAP; > > + pdev->acs_capabilities = ACS_ALL_CAPS; > > + > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, pci_acs_flags_enabled(pdev, c->req), c->expect); > > +} > > + > > +static bool acs_isolated(struct kunit *test, struct acs_ctrl_cfg *cfg, > > + u16 acs_cap, u16 acs_flags) > > +{ > > + struct pci_bus *bus = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*bus), GFP_KERNEL); > > + struct pci_dev *pdev = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*pdev), GFP_KERNEL); > > + > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(test, bus); > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(test, pdev); > > + > > + bus->ops = &acs_ctrl_ops; > > + bus->sysdata = cfg; > > + > > + pdev->bus = bus; > > + pdev->devfn = cfg->devfn; > > + pdev->acs_cap = acs_cap; > > + pdev->acs_capabilities = ACS_ALL_CAPS; > > + > > + return pci_acs_flags_enabled(pdev, acs_flags); > > +} > > [Severity: Low] > This isn't a bug, but in drivers/pci/pci_acs_test.c, > pci_acs_flags_enabled_test() open-codes the same mock struct pci_bus and > struct pci_dev allocation and initialization that acs_isolated() performs > immediately below it. > > Also, struct acs_ctrl_cfg already carries the cap field, which every caller > initializes to the same value passed as the separate acs_cap argument to > acs_isolated(). > > Could acs_isolated() set pdev->acs_cap from cfg->cap directly, and could > pci_acs_flags_enabled_test() call acs_isolated() to avoid duplicating the > setup?
Yes, I can combine them. Thanks > > -- > Sashiko AI review ยท > https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=15
