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

David Hildenbrand
2020-03-30T13:14:25Z

On 30.03.20 15:00, Janosch Frank wrote:
> 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? :)

Well, you never know :) If there is an option for other encodings ...

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb