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

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

On 9/27/21 17:26, Thomas Huth wrote:
> 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
> 

No, a xfail will not help here.