From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:21534 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727420AbfLBRxX (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Dec 2019 12:53:23 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id xB2HlL0K139729 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 12:53:22 -0500 Received: from e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.99]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2wm6uygcb5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 12:53:22 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 17:53:20 -0000 Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 6/9] s390x: css: stsch, enumeration test References: <1574945167-29677-1-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <1574945167-29677-7-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <20191202152246.4d627b0e.cohuck@redhat.com> From: Pierre Morel Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 18:53:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191202152246.4d627b0e.cohuck@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Cornelia Huck Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, frankja@linux.ibm.com, david@redhat.com, thuth@redhat.com On 2019-12-02 15:22, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 13:46:04 +0100 > Pierre Morel wrote: > >> First step by testing the channel subsystem is to enumerate the css and > > s/by/for/ ok > >> retrieve the css devices. >> >> This test the success of STSCH I/O instruction. > > s/test/tests/ yes > >> >> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel >> --- >> s390x/Makefile | 4 ++- >> s390x/css.c | 86 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> s390x/unittests.cfg | 4 +++ >> 3 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> create mode 100644 s390x/css.c >> > > (...) > >> diff --git a/s390x/css.c b/s390x/css.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..8186f55 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/s390x/css.c >> @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ >> +/* >> + * Channel Sub-System tests > > s/Sub-System/Subsystem/ yes too > >> + * >> + * Copyright (c) 2019 IBM Corp >> + * >> + * Authors: >> + * Pierre Morel >> + * >> + * This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it >> + * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2. >> + */ >> + >> +#include >> + >> +#include >> + >> +#define SID_ONE 0x00010000 >> + >> +static struct schib schib; >> + >> +static const char *Channel_type[3] = { >> + "I/O", "CHSC", "MSG" > > No EADM? :) I forgot EADM, I will add it! > > I don't think we plan to emulate anything beyond I/O in QEMU, though. Even, yes, no plan to use it for now. > >> +}; >> + >> +static int test_device_sid; >> + >> +static void test_enumerate(void) >> +{ >> + struct pmcw *pmcw = &schib.pmcw; >> + int sid; >> + int ret, i; >> + int found = 0; >> + >> + for (sid = 0; sid < 0xffff; sid++) { >> + ret = stsch(sid|SID_ONE, &schib); > > This seems a bit odd. You are basically putting the subchannel number > into sid, OR in the one, and then use the resulting value as the sid > (subchannel identifier). > >> + if (!ret && (pmcw->flags & PMCW_DNV)) { >> + report_info("SID %04x Type %s PIM %x", sid, > > That's not a sid, but the subchannel number (see above). > >> + Channel_type[pmcw->st], pmcw->pim); >> + for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) { >> + if ((pmcw->pim << i) & 0x80) { >> + report_info("CHPID[%d]: %02x", i, >> + pmcw->chpid[i]); >> + break; >> + } >> + } >> + found++; >> + >> + } > > Here, you iterate over the 0-0xffff range, even if you got a condition > code 3 (indicating no more subchannels in that set). Is that > intentional? I thought there could be more subchannels. I need then a break in the loop when this happens. I will reread the PoP to see how to find that no more subchannel are in that set. > >> + if (found && !test_device_sid) >> + test_device_sid = sid|SID_ONE; > > You set test_device_sid to the last valid subchannel? Why? The last ? I wanted the first one I wanted something easy but I should have explain. To avoid doing complicated things like doing a sense on each valid subchannel I just take the first one. Should be enough as we do not go to the device in this test. > >> + } >> + if (!found) { >> + report("Found %d devices", 0, found); >> + return; >> + } >> + ret = stsch(test_device_sid, &schib); > > Why do you do a stsch() again? right, no need. In an internal version I used to print some informations from the SCHIB. Since in between I overwrote the SHIB, I did it again. But in this version; no need. > >> + if (ret) { >> + report("Err %d on stsch on sid %08x", 0, ret, test_device_sid); >> + return; >> + } >> + report("Tested", 1); >> + return; > > I don't think you need this return statement. right I have enough work. :) > > Your test only enumerates devices in the first subchannel set. Do you > plan to enhance the test to enable the MSS facility and iterate over > all subchannel sets? Yes, it is something we can do in a following series > >> +} >> + >> +static struct { >> + const char *name; >> + void (*func)(void); >> +} tests[] = { >> + { "enumerate (stsch)", test_enumerate }, >> + { NULL, NULL } >> +}; >> + >> +int main(int argc, char *argv[]) >> +{ >> + int i; >> + >> + report_prefix_push("Channel Sub-System"); > > s/Sub-System/Subsystem/ yes, again. Thanks for the review. Regards, Pierre -- Pierre Morel IBM Lab Boeblingen