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); } -struct testdef {
- const char *name;
- void (*test)(void);
- int extension;
-} testlist[] = {
- {
.name = "simple copy",.test = test_copy,- },
- {
.name = "generic error checks",.test = test_errors,- },
- {
.name = "copy with storage keys",.test = test_copy_key,.extension = 1,- },
- {
.name = "copy with key storage protection override",.test = test_copy_key_storage_prot_override,.extension = 1,- },
- {
.name = "copy with key fetch protection",.test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot,.extension = 1,- },
- {
.name = "copy with key fetch protection override",.test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot_override,.extension = 1,- },
- {
.name = "error checks with key",.test = test_errors_key,.extension = 1,- },
- {
.name = "termination",.test = test_termination,.extension = 1,- },
- {
.name = "error checks with key storage protection override",.test = test_errors_key_storage_prot_override,.extension = 1,- },
- {
.name = "error checks without key fetch prot override",.test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_not_enabled,.extension = 1,- },
- {
.name = "error checks with key fetch prot override",.test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_enabled,.extension = 1,- },
-}; int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { int extension_cap, idx;
- setbuf(stdout, NULL); /* Tell stdout not to buffer its content */ TEST_REQUIRE(kvm_has_cap(KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP));
- extension_cap = kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP_EXTENSION);
- setbuf(stdout, NULL); /* Tell stdout not to buffer its content */
- struct testdef {
const char *name;void (*test)(void);bool requirements_met;- } 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" ?
Anyway: Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth thuth@redhat.com