Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: s390: selftests: Test vm and vcpu memop with keys

[Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>]

On 2/17/22 18:54, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 2/17/22 7:53 AM, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
>> Test storage key checking for both vm and vcpu MEM_OP ioctls.
>> Test both error and non error conditions.
>>
> 
> This patch seems to combine restructuring the code and new code.
> e,g test_errors() was added in the last patch, only to be redone
> in this patch with test_errors split into test_common_errors()
> 
> Doing restructure in a separate patch and then adding new code
> makes it easier to review and also keep them simpler patches.
> 
> Please split the code in these two patches to just do restructure
> and then add new code.
> 
> I also would like to have good reasons to change existing code and
> make them into macros.
>  
>> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>   tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 342 +++++++++++++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 328 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>> index 4510418d73e6..bc12a9238967 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>> @@ -201,6 +201,8 @@ static int err_memop_ioctl(struct test_vcpu vcpu, struct kvm_s390_mem_op *ksmo)
>>   #define PAGE_SHIFT 12
>>   #define PAGE_SIZE (1ULL << PAGE_SHIFT)
>>   #define PAGE_MASK (~(PAGE_SIZE - 1))
>> +#define CR0_FETCH_PROTECTION_OVERRIDE    (1UL << (63 - 38))
>> +#define CR0_STORAGE_PROTECTION_OVERRIDE    (1UL << (63 - 39))
>>     #define ASSERT_MEM_EQ(p1, p2, size) \
>>       TEST_ASSERT(!memcmp(p1, p2, size), "Memory contents do not match!")
>> @@ -235,6 +237,11 @@ static struct test_default test_default_init(void *guest_code)
>>       return t;
>>   }
>>   +static vm_vaddr_t test_vaddr_alloc(struct test_vcpu vm, size_t size, vm_vaddr_t vaddr_min)
>> +{
>> +    return vm_vaddr_alloc(vm.vm, size, vaddr_min);
>> +}
>> +
> 
> What is the value of adding a new routine that simply calls another?

I just found the vm.vm confusing/ugly and wanted to hide it,
I'm not married to that idea, tho.

> Do you see this routine changing in the future to do more?

No.
> 
> thanks,
> -- Shuah