Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 7/8] s390x: uv-host: Properly handle config creation errors

[Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>]

On 3/23/23 14:19, Nico Boehr wrote:
> Quoting Janosch Frank (2023-03-23 11:39:12)
> [...]
>> diff --git a/s390x/uv-host.c b/s390x/uv-host.c
>> index d92571b5..b23d51c9 100644
>> --- a/s390x/uv-host.c
>> +++ b/s390x/uv-host.c
>> @@ -370,6 +370,38 @@ static void test_cpu_create(void)
>>          report_prefix_pop();
>>   }
>>   
>> +/*
>> + * If the first bit of the rc is set we need to destroy the
>> + * configuration before testing other create config errors.
>> + */
>> +static void cgc_destroy_if_needed(struct uv_cb_cgc *uvcb)
> 
> Is there a reason why we can't make this a cgc_uv_call() function which performs the uv_call and the cleanups if needed?

I'd much rather put the destroy into the cleanup area after the report.

> 
> Mixing reports and cleanup activity feels a bit odd to me.
> 
> [...]
>> +/* This function expects errors, not successes */
> 
> I am confused by this comment. What does it mean?
> 
>> +static bool cgc_check_data(struct uv_cb_cgc *uvcb, uint16_t rc_expected)
> 
> Rename to cgc_check_rc_and_handle?
> 
>> +{
>> +       cgc_destroy_if_needed(uvcb);
>> +       /*
>> +        * We should only receive a handle when the rc is 1 or the
>> +        * first bit is set.
> 
> Where is the code that checks for rc == 1?
> 
> Ah OK, so that's what you mean with the comment above, this function only works if the UVC fails, right?
> 
>> +        */
>> +       if (!(uvcb->header.rc & UVC_RC_DSTR_NEEDED_FLG) && uvcb->guest_handle)
>> +               return false;
> 
> It would be nicer if I got a proper report message that tells me that we got a handle even though we shouldn't destroy.

We can report_info() or report_abort().