Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 3/9] s390x: uv-host: Fence a destroy cpu test on z15

[Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>]

On 22/09/2021 09.18, Janosch Frank wrote:
> Firmware will not give us the expected return code on z15 so let's
> fence it for the z15 machine generation.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>   lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
>   s390x/uv-host.c          | 11 +++++++----
>   2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h b/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h
> index aa80d840..c8d2722a 100644
> --- a/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h
> +++ b/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h
> @@ -219,6 +219,20 @@ static inline unsigned short stap(void)
>   	return cpu_address;
>   }
>   
> +#define MACHINE_Z15A	0x8561
> +#define MACHINE_Z15B	0x8562
> +
> +static inline uint16_t get_machine_id(void)
> +{
> +	uint64_t cpuid;
> +
> +	asm volatile("stidp %0" : "=Q" (cpuid));
> +	cpuid = cpuid >> 16;
> +	cpuid &= 0xffff;
> +
> +	return cpuid;
> +}
> +
>   static inline int tprot(unsigned long addr)
>   {
>   	int cc;
> diff --git a/s390x/uv-host.c b/s390x/uv-host.c
> index 66a11160..5e351120 100644
> --- a/s390x/uv-host.c
> +++ b/s390x/uv-host.c
> @@ -111,6 +111,7 @@ static void test_config_destroy(void)
>   static void test_cpu_destroy(void)
>   {
>   	int rc;
> +	uint16_t machineid = get_machine_id();
>   	struct uv_cb_nodata uvcb = {
>   		.header.len = sizeof(uvcb),
>   		.header.cmd = UVC_CMD_DESTROY_SEC_CPU,
> @@ -125,10 +126,12 @@ static void test_cpu_destroy(void)
>   	       "hdr invalid length");
>   	uvcb.header.len += 8;
>   
> -	uvcb.handle += 1;
> -	rc = uv_call(0, (uint64_t)&uvcb);
> -	report(rc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_INV_CHANDLE, "invalid handle");
> -	uvcb.handle -= 1;
> +	if (machineid != MACHINE_Z15A && machineid != MACHINE_Z15B) {
> +		uvcb.handle += 1;
> +		rc = uv_call(0, (uint64_t)&uvcb);
> +		report(rc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_INV_CHANDLE, "invalid handle");
> +		uvcb.handle -= 1;
> +	}

So this is a bug in the firmware? Any chance that it will still get fixed 
for the z15? If so, would it make sense to turn this into a report_xfail() 
instead?

  Thomas