On 14/04/2022 13.51, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 12:53:21 +0200 Thomas Huth thuth@redhat.com wrote:
The tprot test currently does not have any output (unless one of the TEST_ASSERT statement fails), so it's hard to say for a user whether a certain new sub-test has been included in the binary or not. Let's make this a little bit more user-friendly and include some TAP output via the kselftests.h interface.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth thuth@redhat.com
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c | 12 +++++++++++- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c index c097b9db495e..a714b4206e95 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ #include <sys/mman.h> #include "test_util.h" #include "kvm_util.h" +#include "kselftest.h" #define PAGE_SHIFT 12 #define PAGE_SIZE (1 << PAGE_SHIFT) @@ -69,6 +70,7 @@ enum stage { STAGE_INIT_FETCH_PROT_OVERRIDE, TEST_FETCH_PROT_OVERRIDE, TEST_STORAGE_PROT_OVERRIDE,
- NUM_STAGES /* this must be the last entry */ };
struct test { @@ -196,6 +198,7 @@ static void guest_code(void) } \ ASSERT_EQ(uc.cmd, UCALL_SYNC); \ ASSERT_EQ(uc.args[1], __stage); \
- ksft_test_result_pass("" #stage "\n"); \ })
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) @@ -204,6 +207,9 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) struct kvm_run *run; vm_vaddr_t guest_0_page;
- ksft_print_header();
- ksft_set_plan(NUM_STAGES - 1); /* STAGE_END is not counted, thus - 1 */
- vm = vm_create_default(VCPU_ID, 0, guest_code); run = vcpu_state(vm, VCPU_ID);
@@ -213,7 +219,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) guest_0_page = vm_vaddr_alloc(vm, PAGE_SIZE, 0); if (guest_0_page != 0)
print_skip("Did not allocate page at 0 for fetch protection override tests");
ksft_print_msg("Did not allocate page at 0 for fetch protection override tests\n");will this print a skip, though?
No, it's now only a message.
or you don't want to print a skip because then the numbering in the planning doesn't match anymore?
Right.
in which case, is there an easy way to fix it?
Honestly, this part of the code is a little bit of a riddle to me - I wonder why this was using "print_skip()" at all, since the HOST_SYNC below is executed anyway... so this sounds rather like a warning message to me that says that the following test might not work as expected, instead of a real test-is-skipped message?
Janis, could you please clarify the intention here?
Thomas
HOST_SYNC(vm, STAGE_INIT_FETCH_PROT_OVERRIDE); if (guest_0_page == 0) mprotect(addr_gva2hva(vm, (vm_vaddr_t)0), PAGE_SIZE, PROT_READ); @@ -224,4 +230,8 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) run->s.regs.crs[0] |= CR0_STORAGE_PROTECTION_OVERRIDE; run->kvm_dirty_regs = KVM_SYNC_CRS; HOST_SYNC(vm, TEST_STORAGE_PROT_OVERRIDE);
- kvm_vm_free(vm);
- ksft_finished(); }