Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] tests/functional/s390x/test_secure_ipl: Add virtio-blk-pci boot dev case

[Joshua Daley <jdaley@linux.ibm.com>]

On 9/1/2026 4:36 PM, Matthew Rosato wrote:
> On 8/26/26 10:57 AM, Joshua Daley wrote:
>> Split test_s390x_secure_ipl() into two subtests. Each tests with a
>> different boot device: virtio-blk-ccw or virtio-blk-pci. Use class-level
>> variables and a temporary shared workdir such that the time-consuming
>> setup is not run multiple times.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Joshua Daley <jdaley@linux.ibm.com>
> 
> Thanks, I verified that the setup is not run twice (and indeed, you can
> tell that while the first test takes quite a while, the second test
> finishes much faster)
> 
> One other thought below...
> 
> [...]
> 
>> @@ -109,39 +125,42 @@ def setup_s390x_secure_ipl(self):
>>           temp_vm.set_machine('s390-ccw-virtio')
>>   
>>           asset_path = self.ASSET_F40_QCOW2.fetch()
>> -        self.qcow2_path = self.scratch_file('f40.qcow2')
>> +        qcow2_path = os.path.join(S390xSecureIpl._shared_workdir, 'f40.qcow2')
>>           qemu_img = get_qemu_img(self)
>>           check_call([qemu_img, 'create', '-f', 'qcow2', '-b', asset_path,
>> -                    '-F', 'qcow2', self.qcow2_path], stdout=DEVNULL, stderr=DEVNULL)
>> +                    '-F', 'qcow2', qcow2_path], stdout=DEVNULL, stderr=DEVNULL)
>> +        S390xSecureIpl._qcow2_path = qcow2_path
>>   
>>           temp_vm.set_console()
>>           temp_vm.add_args('-nographic',
>>                            '-accel', 'kvm',
>>                            '-m', '1024',
>>                            '-drive',
>> -                         f'id=drive0,if=none,format=qcow2,file={self.qcow2_path}',
>> +                         f'id=drive0,if=none,format=qcow2,file={qcow2_path}',
>>                            '-device', 'virtio-blk-ccw,drive=drive0,bootindex=1')
>>           temp_vm.launch()
>>   
>>           self._require_host_secure_ipl_support(temp_vm)
> 
> If we find this fails the first time, then we are going to fail setup
> and therefore the 2nd test will also enter here, create the qcow2 again,
> and then fail again for the same reason.
> Couldn't we also save the time spent creating the qcow2 and launching a
> VM the second time if we know it didn't work the first time?  It's
> checking the same host facilities.
> 
> Basically I'm wondering if we should just create another flag in
> S390xSecureIpl that defaults to false and gets set to true in
> _require_host_secure_ipl_support() if the support is missing.  And check
> that flag in each test before checking _setup_done and skip right away
> if it's true (with the same message as the one in
> _require_host_secure_ipl_support().
> 
> 
I think that's a good idea. I'll add it. Thanks for reviewing.