From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:1828 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729862AbgC3NDd (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:03:33 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 02UD3QrQ080750 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:03:32 -0400 Received: from e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.98]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3022nm9q4g-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:03:30 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:03:09 +0100 Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH] s390x: Add stsi 3.2.2 tests References: <20200330122035.19607-1-frankja@linux.ibm.com> From: Janosch Frank Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 15:03:13 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pu0xtyhmss64rHR4JzOqUai8TJ8gNYzdC" Message-Id: Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: David Hildenbrand , kvm@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, cohuck@redhat.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --pu0xtyhmss64rHR4JzOqUai8TJ8gNYzdC Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="w4f2RwHtuaJaFFzH4tMmqwy9sQPEkeWpN" --w4f2RwHtuaJaFFzH4tMmqwy9sQPEkeWpN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 3/30/20 2:50 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 30.03.20 14:20, Janosch Frank wrote: >> Subcode 3.2.2 is handled by KVM/QEMU and should therefore be tested >> a bit more thorough. >> >> In this test we set a custom name and uuid through the QEMU command >> line. Both parameters will be passed to the guest on a stsi subcode >> 3.2.2 call and will then be checked. >> >> We also compare the total and configured cpu numbers against the smp >> reported numbers. >> >> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank >> --- >> s390x/stsi.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= + >> s390x/unittests.cfg | 1 + >> 2 files changed, 63 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/s390x/stsi.c b/s390x/stsi.c >> index e9206bca137d2edb..10e588a78cc05186 100644 >> --- a/s390x/stsi.c >> +++ b/s390x/stsi.c >> @@ -14,7 +14,28 @@ >> #include >> #include >> #include >> +#include >> =20 >> +struct stsi_322 { >> + uint8_t reserved[31]; >> + uint8_t count; >> + struct { >> + uint8_t reserved2[4]; >=20 > I dislike aligning the members using double-spaces ... Time to fix target/s390x/cpu.h then :) >=20 >> + uint16_t total_cpus; >> + uint16_t conf_cpus; >> + uint16_t standby_cpus; >> + uint16_t reserved_cpus; >> + uint8_t name[8]; >> + uint32_t caf; >> + uint8_t cpi[16]; >> + uint8_t reserved5[3]; >=20 > ... e.g., here it's not aligned anymore. Just use single spaces. >=20 >> + uint8_t ext_name_encoding; >> + uint32_t reserved3; >> + uint8_t uuid[16]; >> + } vm[8]; >> + uint8_t reserved4[1504]; >> + uint8_t ext_names[8][256]; >> +}; >> static uint8_t pagebuf[PAGE_SIZE * 2] __attribute__((aligned(PAGE_SIZ= E * 2))); >> =20 >> static void test_specs(void) >> @@ -76,11 +97,52 @@ static void test_fc(void) >> report(stsi_get_fc(pagebuf) >=3D 2, "query fc >=3D 2"); >> } >> =20 >> +static void test_3_2_2(void) >> +{ >> + int rc; >> + /* EBCDIC for "kvm-unit" */ >> + uint8_t vm_name[] =3D { 0x92, 0xa5, 0x94, 0x60, 0xa4, 0x95, 0x89, 0x= a3 }; >> + uint8_t uuid[] =3D { 0x0f, 0xb8, 0x4a, 0x86, 0x72, 0x7c, >> + 0x11, 0xea, 0xbc, 0x55, 0x02, 0x42, 0xac, 0x13, >> + 0x00, 0x03 }; >> + /* EBCDIC for "KVM/" */ >> + uint8_t cpi_kvm[] =3D { 0xd2, 0xe5, 0xd4, 0x61 }; >=20 > All of these can be const. >=20 >> + const char *vm_name_ext =3D "kvm-unit-test"; >> + struct stsi_322 *data =3D (void *)pagebuf; >> + >> + /* Is the function code available at all? */ >> + if (stsi_get_fc(pagebuf) < 3) >=20 > Maybe report_skip() ? Ack >=20 >> + return; >> + >> + report_prefix_push("3.2.2"); >> + rc =3D stsi(pagebuf, 3, 2, 2); >> + report(!rc, "call"); >> + >> + /* For now we concentrate on KVM/QEMU */ >> + if (memcmp(&data->vm[0].cpi, cpi_kvm, sizeof(cpi_kvm))) >=20 > Maybe report_skip() ? Ack >=20 >> + goto out; >> + >> + report(data->vm[0].total_cpus =3D=3D smp_query_num_cpus(), "cpu # to= tal"); >> + report(data->vm[0].conf_cpus =3D=3D smp_query_num_cpus(), "cpu # con= figured"); >> + report(data->vm[0].standby_cpus =3D=3D 0, "cpu # standby"); >> + report(data->vm[0].reserved_cpus =3D=3D 0, "cpu # reserved"); >=20 > IIRC, using -smp 1,maxcpus=3DX, you could also test the reported reserv= ed > CPUs. Will try that >=20 >=20 > Also passes under TCG, nice :) >=20 --w4f2RwHtuaJaFFzH4tMmqwy9sQPEkeWpN-- --pu0xtyhmss64rHR4JzOqUai8TJ8gNYzdC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEwGNS88vfc9+v45Yq41TmuOI4ufgFAl6B7hEACgkQ41TmuOI4 ufj2jA/9FyNzmXRAjy+yC4t/APP7CtEF+qXfcInh3iDeDKhwQueEkbpJ3dOS3CGz 9y6LjqHRRLl4CAsSpS25Xv0OtzuSMQTeDdvj5Zz4h8FDt0mb18zuhIQG9IS8Pmnj sDofb6CWdTzGXHTbkrxLJNIxTw5U3xOeUy2yWFKo4nZF+HQD5D2lrxEOD4iPb6Jl dA44o24Er62JCvZlF6W52NCtZvKhpdq+X3XqI6F6uGsb09GY6MCtNgwVjFWw9Cwx UaY4MO5bLyMYOJr929jYO8LGnrnUwB8UuXixeAzrc2Ro3KddtgilUVCkZDUQYQEq Ha+5c0TxRBQqKxmrOWNnpvKWxJHYmaLABZY0jC2VIgYWtw2UrSBuqMWT288d86H9 lrhAh8KRee8HfTbQS64LYc2cyyr4UsQey8nKDU4wiNGEXO6rmLh5gZ3g9Hxmkzio xmGH8j0/Cj9JrGopWLjCEEffkxXgBTBT5kYonRaXot6QH6+D2cyiiEsmdkywG2AK zSSFNYhTW/0LmeaVszdLYbKReVyWXK3BGyXHojwNM/57FqcsibgDVhg+fBurZ/hg yNlgXRQwa//RlFCr5yEmSvYpL932zFhoeIF8OG0AH9FOE6UDUa/5tgbNBgwX6ANR vMRowjDspq+C6U6rZ9vp0vnkBdP5U28YAA0JO9w9bRU7Syaaxdo= =nKva -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pu0xtyhmss64rHR4JzOqUai8TJ8gNYzdC--