On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 5:01 PM Andrew Jones ajones@ventanamicro.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2023 at 11:57:00AM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote:
On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 6:10 PM Haibo Xu xiaobo55x@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 10:04 PM Andrew Jones ajones@ventanamicro.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 02, 2023 at 08:59:29PM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote:
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/riscv/get-reg-list.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/riscv/get-reg-list.c index d8ecacd03ecf..c4028bf32e3f 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/riscv/get-reg-list.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/riscv/get-reg-list.c @@ -44,20 +44,6 @@ bool check_reject_set(int err) return err == EINVAL; }
-static inline bool vcpu_has_ext(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int ext) -{
int ret;unsigned long value;ret = __vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, RISCV_ISA_EXT_REG(ext), &value);if (ret) {printf("Failed to get ext %d", ext);return false;}return !!value;get-reg-list will now assert on get-reg when an extension isn't present, rather than failing the __TEST_REQUIRE(), which would do a skip instead. We need both the return false version and the assert version.
Ok, Will keep this one for get-reg-list and add another one for arch-timer specific usage.
Just thought about it again, maybe we only need the "return false" version for both get-reg-list and arch-timer tests since if an extension was not available, the test can be skipped with a message.
bool vcpu_has_ext(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int ext) { unsigned long value = 0;
__vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, RISCV_ISA_EXT_REG(ext), &value); return !!value;}
Yup, I had actually seen that when reviewing a later patch in this series, but I wasn't concerned if we added the assert type anyway, since we frequently end up with the two function types for KVM queries. If we don't have a need for an assert type yet, then we don't need to introduce it. However, we should introduce the non-assert type as __vcpu_has_ext(), reserving the vcpu_has_ext() name for the assert type, per the kvm selftests naming convention.
Sure, thanks!
Thanks, drew