Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] KVM: s390: selftests: Use TAP interface in the memop test

Thomas Huth
2022-06-14T14:24:45Z

On 14/06/2022 12.38, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> On 5/31/22 12:15, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> The memop test currently does not have any output (unless one of the
>> TEST_ASSERT statement fails), so it's hard to say for a user whether
>> a certain new sub-test has been included in the binary or not. Let's
>> make this a little bit more user-friendly and include some TAP output
>> via the kselftests.h interface.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 95 ++++++++++++++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 77 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>> index 49f26f544127..e704c6fa5758 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
>>
>
> [...]
>
>> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>> {
>> - int memop_cap, extension_cap;
>> + int memop_cap, extension_cap, idx;
>>
>> setbuf(stdout, NULL); /* Tell stdout not to buffer its content */
>>
>> + ksft_print_header();
>> +
>> memop_cap = kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP);
>> extension_cap = kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP_EXTENSION);
>> if (!memop_cap) {
>> - print_skip("CAP_S390_MEM_OP not supported");
>> - exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>> + ksft_exit_skip("CAP_S390_MEM_OP not supported.\n");
>> }
>>
>> - test_copy();
>> - if (extension_cap > 0) {
>> - test_copy_key();
>> - test_copy_key_storage_prot_override();
>> - test_copy_key_fetch_prot();
>> - test_copy_key_fetch_prot_override();
>> - test_errors_key();
>> - test_termination();
>> - test_errors_key_storage_prot_override();
>> - test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_not_enabled();
>> - test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_enabled();
>> - } else {
>> - print_skip("storage key memop extension not supported");
>> + ksft_set_plan(ARRAY_SIZE(testlist));
>> +
>> + for (idx = 0; idx < ARRAY_SIZE(testlist); idx++) {
>> + if (testlist[idx].extension >= extension_cap) {
>
> This is reversed, should be
>
> if (testlist[idx].extension <= extension_cap) {
> or
> if (extension_cap >= testlist[idx].extension) {

Drat! The patch is already in Paolo's queue ... could you please send a
patch to fix this, so that Paolo can either squash it (not sure whether
that's still feasible) or queue it, too?

> I'd prefer the latter.

Me too.

Thanks,
Thomas