Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH] s390x: Fix stsi unaligned test and add selector tests

[Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>]

On 20/09/2019 10.10, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 20.09.19 09:50, Janosch Frank wrote:
>> Alignment and selectors test order is not specified and so, if you
>> have an unaligned address and invalid selectors it's up to the
>> hypervisor to decide which error is presented.
>>
>> Let's add valid selectors to the unalignmnet test and add selector
>> tests.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>  s390x/stsi.c | 4 +++-
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/s390x/stsi.c b/s390x/stsi.c
>> index 7232cb0..c5bd0a2 100644
>> --- a/s390x/stsi.c
>> +++ b/s390x/stsi.c
>> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ static void test_specs(void)
>>  
>>  	report_prefix_push("unaligned");
>>  	expect_pgm_int();
>> -	stsi(pagebuf + 42, 1, 0, 0);
>> +	stsi(pagebuf + 42, 1, 1, 1);
>>  	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIFICATION);
>>  	report_prefix_pop();
>>  
>> @@ -71,6 +71,8 @@ static inline unsigned long stsi_get_fc(void *addr)
>>  static void test_fc(void)
>>  {
>>  	report("invalid fc",  stsi(pagebuf, 7, 0, 0) == 3);

While you're at it, wouldn't it be better to use "(pagebuf, 7, 1, 1)" here?

 Thomas


>> +	report("invalid selector 1", stsi(pagebuf, 1, 0, 1) == 3);
>> +	report("invalid selector 2", stsi(pagebuf, 1, 1, 0) == 3);
>>  	report("query fc >= 2",  stsi_get_fc(pagebuf) >= 2);
>>  }
>>  
>>
> 
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>