Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH] s390x: Add strict mode to specification exception interpretation test

[Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>]

On 2/28/22 14:27, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 18:23:55 +0100
> Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> While specification exception interpretation is not required to occur,
>> it can be useful for automatic regression testing to fail the test if it
>> does not occur.
>> Add a `--strict` argument to enable this.
>> `--strict` takes a list of machine types (as reported by STIDP)
>> for which to enable strict mode, for example
>> `--strict 8562,8561,3907,3906,2965,2964`
>> will enable it for models z15 - z13.
>> Alternatively, strict mode can be enabled for all but the listed machine
>> types by prefixing the list with a `!`, for example
>> `--strict !1090,1091,2064,2066,2084,2086,2094,2096,2097,2098,2817,2818,2827,2828`
>> will enable it for z/Architecture models except those older than z13.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
> 
> [...]
> 
>> +static bool parse_strict(int argc, char **argv)
>> +{
>> +	uint16_t machine_id;
>> +	char *list;
>> +	bool ret;
>> +
>> +	if (argc < 1)
>> +		return false;
>> +	if (strcmp("--strict", argv[0]))
>> +		return false;
>> +
>> +	machine_id = get_machine_id();
>> +	if (argc < 2) {
>> +		printf("No argument to --strict, ignoring\n");
>> +		return false;
>> +	}
>> +	list = argv[1];
>> +	if (list[0] == '!') {
>> +		ret = true;
>> +		list++;
>> +	} else
>> +		ret = false;
>> +	while (true) {
>> +		long input = 0;
>> +
>> +		if (strlen(list) == 0)
>> +			return ret;
>> +		input = strtol(list, &list, 16);
>> +		if (*list == ',')
>> +			list++;
>> +		else if (*list != '\0')
>> +			break;
>> +		if (input == machine_id)
>> +			return !ret;
>> +	}
>> +	printf("Invalid --strict argument \"%s\", ignoring\n", list);
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
> 
> probably I should write a few parsing functions for command line
> arguments, so we don't have to re-invent the wheel every time

Maybe, would depend on what you have in mind, I'm not sure most
use cases can be covered by a reasonable set of abstractions.
> 
>> +
>>  int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>  {
>>  	if (!sclp_facilities.has_sief2) {
>> @@ -76,7 +121,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>  		goto out;
>>  	}
>>  
>> -	test_spec_ex_sie();
>> +	test_spec_ex_sie(parse_strict(argc - 1, argv + 1));
> 
> hmmm... maybe it would be more readable and more uniform with the other
> tests to parse the command line during initialization of the unit test,
> and set a global flag.

More uniform maybe, but I tend to dislike globals from a readability point
of view. I'm inclined to keep it as is.
> 
>>  out:
>>  	return report_summary();
>>  }
>>
>> base-commit: 257c962f3d1b2d0534af59de4ad18764d734903a
>