On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 08:52 +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 17/11/2022 23.17, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
This allows checking if the necessary requirements for a test case are met via an arbitrary expression. In particular, it is easy to check if certain bits are set in the memop extension capability.
Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch scgl@linux.ibm.com
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 132 +++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c index 286185a59238..10f34c629cac 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c @@ -690,87 +690,87 @@ static void test_errors(void) kvm_vm_free(t.kvm_vm); }
[...]
- } testlist[] = {
{.name = "simple copy",.test = test_copy,.requirements_met = true,},{.name = "generic error checks",.test = test_errors,.requirements_met = true,},{.name = "copy with storage keys",.test = test_copy_key,.requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,},{.name = "copy with key storage protection override",.test = test_copy_key_storage_prot_override,.requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,},{.name = "copy with key fetch protection",.test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot,.requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,},{.name = "copy with key fetch protection override",.test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot_override,.requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,},{.name = "error checks with key",.test = test_errors_key,.requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,},{.name = "termination",.test = test_termination,.requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,},{.name = "error checks with key storage protection override",.test = test_errors_key_storage_prot_override,.requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,},{.name = "error checks without key fetch prot override",.test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_not_enabled,.requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,},{.name = "error checks with key fetch prot override",.test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_enabled,.requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,I wonder whether it would rather make sense to check for "extension_cap & 1" instead of "extension_cap > 0" ?
The cap should always have been a bitmap, but unfortunately I didn't initially define it as one, the storage key extension must be supported if the cap > 0. So the test reflects that and may catch an error in the future.
Anyway: Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth thuth@redhat.com
Thanks!