From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-185.mta0.migadu.com (out-185.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.185]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B15FE2D9ED8 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2025 20:48:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.185 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761770917; cv=none; b=sQudsm7IK3wTItlwsxBI8CGCtaQ+c/3WNPuLBrG05bpWG4q7GnzJPbmI5Kv5VngTxA7IVbTauCSvudqTlpYGJ/0jLLIxN+0fbYNpzhtcsxwdHkH68II5T0y68luD/7m1ugFprFiEJkz92sNyQ5oFepvl78wYyP5OxUB5Ozqn+b4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761770917; c=relaxed/simple; bh=CpqxIQaOXMxDs/03sklra3KXKiZ5+GcRhtAMgLboz7Y=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Cg8OpyQypFZRTL2mt6kgoAmoMpxNrlq4CEg18aXg0ALcSErdhWlYjULqIIw4ODsD3Mbmee/yaU5c7Gv1jpNGIuKb6dHeoM0H/AykrOKGUmPsDDNYR2LCtI2wNSPz+5NjbV7VK56nQ4IdXY/a62JzYGMfqSGe8SZ6/qg0lcfTWKA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=mMtMSGoz; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.185 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="mMtMSGoz" Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 13:48:24 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1761770909; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=JYMU26G80HSBFv2mfmxmI1ldCw66DlxUZPOrNSRANLA=; b=mMtMSGoznU8oiC3CKM6I+dZhCTlWmvw1ubRpmyM4nMyhNicLPb4oETsm6a/gY/kM3R7A2l uMgoibMrNKqc42fs6rPaWAvbqqk6ib+dkdFcS2rDB6TbbvE9MZFY1tZHKxSlsaF1oejGB3 2up1KEUWUmjPt8uzMnMoLhUpcai+VD4= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Oliver Upton To: Ben Horgan Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, maz@kernel.org, joey.gouly@arm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, yuzenghui@huawei.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, shuah@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] KVM: arm64: selftests: Count test_guest_reg_read() as a test Message-ID: References: <20251014102108.2442391-1-ben.horgan@arm.com> <20251014102108.2442391-2-ben.horgan@arm.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20251014102108.2442391-2-ben.horgan@arm.com> X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 11:21:06AM +0100, Ben Horgan wrote: > The test test_guest_reg_read() is run without announcing its presence or > contributing to the test count. Rectify this. > > Signed-off-by: Ben Horgan > --- > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/set_id_regs.c | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/set_id_regs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/set_id_regs.c > index 5e24f77868b5..6878ee23310e 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/set_id_regs.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/set_id_regs.c > @@ -655,6 +655,8 @@ static void test_guest_reg_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > TEST_FAIL("Unexpected ucall: %lu", uc.cmd); > } > } > + > + ksft_test_result_pass("%s\n", __func__); > } > > /* Politely lifted from arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h */ > @@ -786,7 +788,7 @@ int main(void) > > ksft_print_header(); > > - test_cnt = 3 + MPAM_IDREG_TEST + MTE_IDREG_TEST; > + test_cnt = 4 + MPAM_IDREG_TEST + MTE_IDREG_TEST; TBH, I'd actually be in favor of a patch that removes usage of the ksft_* harness from this test altogether. I don't think it adds much and we use the KVM-specific test assertions anyway. Thanks, Oliver