Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 1/4] arm/arm64: reserve argv[0] for prognam

[Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>]

On 22.04.2016 16:54, Andrew Jones wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
> ---
>  arm/selftest.c      | 14 +++++++-------
>  arm/spinlock-test.c |  2 +-
>  lib/argv.c          | 16 ++++++++++++----
>  3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arm/selftest.c b/arm/selftest.c
> index 75dc91faab69a..5656f2bb1cc88 100644
> --- a/arm/selftest.c
> +++ b/arm/selftest.c
> @@ -324,25 +324,25 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>  {
>  	report_prefix_push("selftest");
>  
> -	if (!argc)
> +	if (argc < 2)
>  		report_abort("no test specified");
>  
> -	report_prefix_push(argv[0]);
> +	report_prefix_push(argv[1]);
>  
> -	if (strcmp(argv[0], "setup") == 0) {
> +	if (strcmp(argv[1], "setup") == 0) {
>  
> -		check_setup(argc-1, &argv[1]);
> +		check_setup(argc-2, &argv[2]);
>  
> -	} else if (strcmp(argv[0], "vectors-kernel") == 0) {
> +	} else if (strcmp(argv[1], "vectors-kernel") == 0) {
>  
>  		check_vectors(NULL);
>  
> -	} else if (strcmp(argv[0], "vectors-user") == 0) {
> +	} else if (strcmp(argv[1], "vectors-user") == 0) {
>  
>  		start_usr(check_vectors, NULL,
>  				(unsigned long)thread_stack_alloc());
>  
> -	} else if (strcmp(argv[0], "smp") == 0) {
> +	} else if (strcmp(argv[1], "smp") == 0) {
>  
>  		int cpu;
>  
> diff --git a/arm/spinlock-test.c b/arm/spinlock-test.c
> index fd2af9fd2f4d3..6009ba087e4b4 100644
> --- a/arm/spinlock-test.c
> +++ b/arm/spinlock-test.c
> @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>  {
>  	int cpu;
>  
> -	if (argc && strcmp(argv[0], "bad") != 0) {
> +	if (argc > 1 && strcmp(argv[1], "bad") != 0) {
>  		lock_ops.lock = gcc_builtin_lock;
>  		lock_ops.unlock = gcc_builtin_unlock;
>  	} else {
> diff --git a/lib/argv.c b/lib/argv.c
> index 62dd1fd4cf980..1c6c6a44c836d 100644
> --- a/lib/argv.c
> +++ b/lib/argv.c
> @@ -34,9 +34,17 @@ void __setup_args(void)
>  
>  void setup_args(char *args)
>  {
> -    if (!args)
> -        return;
> +    if (args) {
> +        __args = args;
> +        __setup_args();
>  
> -    __args = args;
> -    __setup_args();
> +#if defined(__arm__) || defined(__aarch64__)
> +        for (int i = __argc; i > 0; --i)

Declaring a variable within a for statement is C++ style ... but since
it is used in a couple of places of kvm-unit-test already, I assume this
is ok?

> +            __argv[i] = __argv[i-1];
> +#endif
> +    }
> +#if defined(__arm__) || defined(__aarch64__)
> +    __argv[0] = NULL; //HACK: just reserve argv[0] for now
> +    ++__argc;
> +#endif
>  }

Looks fine to me (apart from that C++ nit ;-))

Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>