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

Thomas Huth
2019-09-23T10:00:12Z

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1523 bytes --]

On 23/09/2019 11.48, Janosch Frank wrote:
> On 9/23/19 10:10 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> 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 unaligned 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?
>
> The selectors depend on the command, so they need to be checked after
> the command. I don't think it would make much sense to change the zeroes
> here.

OK, fair. Patche queued.

Thomas

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]