Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3] s390x: Add stsi 3.2.2 tests

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3701 bytes --]

On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:46:53 +0200
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 3/31/20 11:35 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 03:14:56 -0400
> > Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> Subcode 3.2.2 is handled by KVM/QEMU and should therefore be tested
> >> a bit more thorough.  
> > 
> > s/thorough/thoroughly/ ?
> >   
> >>
> >> In this test we set a custom name and uuid through the QEMU command
> >> line. Both parameters will be passed to the guest on a stsi subcode
> >> 3.2.2 call and will then be checked.
> >>
> >> We also compare the configured cpu numbers against the smp reported
> >> numbers and if the reserved + configured add up to the total number
> >> reported.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> * Tabify on struct
> >> * Moved prefix_push up a bit
> >> * Replaced returns with goto out to pop prefix
> >>
> >> ---
> >>  s390x/stsi.c        | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  s390x/unittests.cfg |  1 +
> >>  2 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
> >>  
> > 
> > (...)
> >   
> >> +static void test_3_2_2(void)
> >> +{
> >> +	int rc;
> >> +	/* EBCDIC for "kvm-unit" */
> >> +	const uint8_t vm_name[] = { 0x92, 0xa5, 0x94, 0x60, 0xa4, 0x95, 0x89,
> >> +				    0xa3 };
> >> +	const uint8_t uuid[] = { 0x0f, 0xb8, 0x4a, 0x86, 0x72, 0x7c,
> >> +				 0x11, 0xea, 0xbc, 0x55, 0x02, 0x42, 0xac, 0x13,
> >> +				 0x00, 0x03 };
> >> +	/* EBCDIC for "KVM/" */
> >> +	const uint8_t cpi_kvm[] = { 0xd2, 0xe5, 0xd4, 0x61 };
> >> +	const char *vm_name_ext = "kvm-unit-test";
> >> +	struct stsi_322 *data = (void *)pagebuf;
> >> +
> >> +	report_prefix_push("3.2.2");
> >> +
> >> +	/* Is the function code available at all? */
> >> +	if (stsi_get_fc(pagebuf) < 3) {
> >> +		report_skip("Running under lpar, no level 3 to test.");
> >> +		goto out;
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	rc = stsi(pagebuf, 3, 2, 2);
> >> +	report(!rc, "call");
> >> +
> >> +	/* For now we concentrate on KVM/QEMU */
> >> +	if (memcmp(&data->vm[0].cpi, cpi_kvm, sizeof(cpi_kvm))) {
> >> +		report_skip("Not running under KVM/QEMU.");
> >> +		goto out;
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	report(!memcmp(data->vm[0].uuid, uuid, sizeof(uuid)), "uuid");
> >> +	report(data->vm[0].conf_cpus == smp_query_num_cpus(), "cpu # configured");
> >> +	report(data->vm[0].total_cpus ==
> >> +	       data->vm[0].reserved_cpus + data->vm[0].conf_cpus,
> >> +	       "cpu # total == conf + reserved");
> >> +	report(data->vm[0].standby_cpus == 0, "cpu # standby");
> >> +	report(!memcmp(data->vm[0].name, vm_name, sizeof(data->vm[0].name)),
> >> +	       "VM name == kvm-unit-test");
> >> +
> >> +	if (data->vm[0].ext_name_encoding != 2) {
> >> +		report_skip("Extended VM names are not UTF-8.");  
> > 
> > Do we expect this to be anything other than UTF-8?  
> 
> With the current QEMU no.

I don't really see a reason to change this in QEMU, though; and as you
check already whether we're running under QEMU, maybe make this a
failure?

> When I find time to test this under z/VM (as a guest 2, no KVM) maybe.

Would it make sense to check (different) expected values for z/VM and
QEMU, then?

> 
> >   
> >> +		goto out;
> >> +	}
> >> +	report(!memcmp(data->ext_names[0], vm_name_ext, sizeof(vm_name_ext)),
> >> +		       "ext VM name == kvm-unit-test");
> >> +
> >> +out:
> >> +	report_prefix_pop();
> >> +}
> >> +
> >>  int main(void)
> >>  {
> >>  	report_prefix_push("stsi");
> >>  	test_priv();
> >>  	test_specs();
> >>  	test_fc();
> >> +	test_3_2_2();
> >>  	return report_summary();
> >>  }  
> > 
> > (...)
> >   
> 
> 


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]