Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH] s390x: Add stsi 3.2.2 tests

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

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3357 bytes --]

On 3/30/20 2:51 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 30.03.20 14:20, Janosch Frank wrote:
>> Subcode 3.2.2 is handled by KVM/QEMU and should therefore be tested
>> a bit more thorough.
>>
>> In this test we set a custom name and uuid through the QEMU command
>> line. Both parameters will be passed to the guest on a stsi subcode
>> 3.2.2 call and will then be checked.
>>
>> We also compare the total and configured cpu numbers against the smp
>> reported numbers.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>  s390x/stsi.c        | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  s390x/unittests.cfg |  1 +
>>  2 files changed, 63 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/s390x/stsi.c b/s390x/stsi.c
>> index e9206bca137d2edb..10e588a78cc05186 100644
>> --- a/s390x/stsi.c
>> +++ b/s390x/stsi.c
>> @@ -14,7 +14,28 @@
>>  #include <asm/page.h>
>>  #include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
>>  #include <asm/interrupt.h>
>> +#include <smp.h>
>>  
>> +struct stsi_322 {
>> +    uint8_t  reserved[31];
>> +    uint8_t  count;
>> +    struct {
>> +        uint8_t  reserved2[4];
>> +        uint16_t total_cpus;
>> +        uint16_t conf_cpus;
>> +        uint16_t standby_cpus;
>> +        uint16_t reserved_cpus;
>> +        uint8_t  name[8];
>> +        uint32_t caf;
>> +        uint8_t  cpi[16];
>> +        uint8_t reserved5[3];
>> +        uint8_t ext_name_encoding;
>> +        uint32_t reserved3;
>> +        uint8_t uuid[16];
>> +    } vm[8];
>> +    uint8_t reserved4[1504];
>> +    uint8_t ext_names[8][256];
>> +};
>>  static uint8_t pagebuf[PAGE_SIZE * 2] __attribute__((aligned(PAGE_SIZE * 2)));
>>  
>>  static void test_specs(void)
>> @@ -76,11 +97,52 @@ static void test_fc(void)
>>  	report(stsi_get_fc(pagebuf) >= 2, "query fc >= 2");
>>  }
>>  
>> +static void test_3_2_2(void)
>> +{
>> +	int rc;
>> +	/* EBCDIC for "kvm-unit" */
>> +	uint8_t vm_name[] = { 0x92, 0xa5, 0x94, 0x60, 0xa4, 0x95, 0x89, 0xa3 };
>> +	uint8_t uuid[] = { 0x0f, 0xb8, 0x4a, 0x86, 0x72, 0x7c,
>> +			   0x11, 0xea, 0xbc, 0x55, 0x02, 0x42, 0xac, 0x13,
>> +			   0x00, 0x03 };
>> +	/* EBCDIC for "KVM/" */
>> +	uint8_t cpi_kvm[] = { 0xd2, 0xe5, 0xd4, 0x61 };
>> +	const char *vm_name_ext = "kvm-unit-test";
>> +	struct stsi_322 *data = (void *)pagebuf;
>> +
>> +	/* Is the function code available at all? */
>> +	if (stsi_get_fc(pagebuf) < 3)
>> +		return;
>> +
>> +	report_prefix_push("3.2.2");
>> +	rc = stsi(pagebuf, 3, 2, 2);
>> +	report(!rc, "call");
>> +
>> +	/* For now we concentrate on KVM/QEMU */
>> +	if (memcmp(&data->vm[0].cpi, cpi_kvm, sizeof(cpi_kvm)))
>> +		goto out;
>> +
>> +	report(data->vm[0].total_cpus == smp_query_num_cpus(), "cpu # total");
>> +	report(data->vm[0].conf_cpus == smp_query_num_cpus(), "cpu # configured");
>> +	report(data->vm[0].standby_cpus == 0, "cpu # standby");
>> +	report(data->vm[0].reserved_cpus == 0, "cpu # reserved");
>> +	report(!memcmp(data->vm[0].name, vm_name, sizeof(data->vm[0].name)),
>> +	       "VM name == kvm-unit-test");
>> +	report(data->vm[0].ext_name_encoding == 2, "ext name encoding UTF-8");
> 
> should you rather do
> 
> if (data->vm[0].ext_name_encoding == 2) {
> 	...
> } else {
> 	report_skip(...);
> }
> 
> to make this future-proof?
> 
Do you expect UTF-16 or EBCDIC in the future? :)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]