Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 6/6] s390x: SMP test

[Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1627 bytes --]

On 9/25/19 10:49 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 20/09/2019 10.03, Janosch Frank wrote:
>> Testing SIGP emulation for the following order codes:
>> * start
>> * stop
>> * restart
>> * set prefix
>> * store status
>> * stop and store status
>> * reset
>> * initial reset
>> * external call
>> * emegergency call
>>
>> restart and set prefix are part of the library and needed to start
>> other cpus.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>  s390x/Makefile      |   1 +
>>  s390x/smp.c         | 242 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> [...]
>> +int main(void)
>> +{
>> +	report_prefix_push("smp");
>> +
>> +	if (smp_query_num_cpus() == 1) {
>> +		report_abort("need at least 2 cpus for this test");
> 
> nit: report_abort() aborts immediately, so the "goto done" below is dead
> code. Did you mean report_skip() instead?

That would make more sense, yes

> 
>> +		goto done;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	test_start();
>> +	test_stop();
>> +	test_stop_store_status();
>> +	test_store_status();
>> +	test_ecall();
>> +	test_emcall();
>> +	test_reset();
>> +	test_reset_initial();
>> +
>> +done:
>> +	report_prefix_pop();
>> +	return report_summary();
>> +}
> 
> Apart from the nit, the patch looks fine to me. Since this is IIRC the
> only nit that is left in this series, I can also fix it up when picking
> up the patch, if you like - just tell me whether you prefer report_skip
> or deletion of the goto.

Well, that might depend on how much weight David's latest comment has.
:-) If you want to, you can pick and fix.

> 
>  Thomas
> 



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