Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v6 1/3] s390x: Give name to return value of tprot()

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

On 4/27/22 13:14, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 12:06:09 +0200
> Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> Improve readability by making the return value of tprot() an enum.
>>
>> No functional change intended.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>
> 
> but see nit below
> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>  lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h | 11 +++++++++--
>>  lib/s390x/sclp.c         |  6 +++---
>>  s390x/tprot.c            | 24 ++++++++++++------------
>>  3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

[...]

>> diff --git a/s390x/tprot.c b/s390x/tprot.c
>> index 460a0db7..8eb91c18 100644
>> --- a/s390x/tprot.c
>> +++ b/s390x/tprot.c
>> @@ -20,26 +20,26 @@ static uint8_t pagebuf[PAGE_SIZE] __attribute__((aligned(PAGE_SIZE)));
>>  
>>  static void test_tprot_rw(void)
>>  {
>> -	int cc;
>> +	enum tprot_permission permission;
>>  
>>  	report_prefix_push("Page read/writeable");
>>  
>> -	cc = tprot((unsigned long)pagebuf, 0);
>> -	report(cc == 0, "CC = 0");
>> +	permission = tprot((unsigned long)pagebuf, 0);
>> +	report(permission == TPROT_READ_WRITE, "CC = 0");
> 
> here and in all similar cases below: does it still make sense to have
> "CC = 0" as message at this point? Maybe a more descriptive one would
> be better

I thought about it, but decided against it. Firstly, because I preferred
not to do any functional changes and secondly, I could not think of anything
better. The prefix already tells you the meaning of the cc, so I don't know
what to print that would not be redundant.

[...]