Re: [PATCH v3 5/9] KVM: s390: selftest: memop: Move testlist into main

Thomas Huth
2022-11-22T07:53:57Z

On 17/11/2022 23.17, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> This allows checking if the necessary requirements for a test case are
> met via an arbitrary expression. In particular, it is easy to check if
> certain bits are set in the memop extension capability.
>
> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 132 +++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> index 286185a59238..10f34c629cac 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> @@ -690,87 +690,87 @@ static void test_errors(void)
> kvm_vm_free(t.kvm_vm);
> }
>
> -struct testdef {
> - const char *name;
> - void (*test)(void);
> - int extension;
> -} testlist[] = {
> - {
> - .name = "simple copy",
> - .test = test_copy,
> - },
> - {
> - .name = "generic error checks",
> - .test = test_errors,
> - },
> - {
> - .name = "copy with storage keys",
> - .test = test_copy_key,
> - .extension = 1,
> - },
> - {
> - .name = "copy with key storage protection override",
> - .test = test_copy_key_storage_prot_override,
> - .extension = 1,
> - },
> - {
> - .name = "copy with key fetch protection",
> - .test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot,
> - .extension = 1,
> - },
> - {
> - .name = "copy with key fetch protection override",
> - .test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot_override,
> - .extension = 1,
> - },
> - {
> - .name = "error checks with key",
> - .test = test_errors_key,
> - .extension = 1,
> - },
> - {
> - .name = "termination",
> - .test = test_termination,
> - .extension = 1,
> - },
> - {
> - .name = "error checks with key storage protection override",
> - .test = test_errors_key_storage_prot_override,
> - .extension = 1,
> - },
> - {
> - .name = "error checks without key fetch prot override",
> - .test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_not_enabled,
> - .extension = 1,
> - },
> - {
> - .name = "error checks with key fetch prot override",
> - .test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_enabled,
> - .extension = 1,
> - },
> -};
>
> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> int extension_cap, idx;
>
> + setbuf(stdout, NULL); /* Tell stdout not to buffer its content */
> TEST_REQUIRE(kvm_has_cap(KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP));
> + extension_cap = kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP_EXTENSION);
>
> - setbuf(stdout, NULL); /* Tell stdout not to buffer its content */
> + struct testdef {
> + const char *name;
> + void (*test)(void);
> + bool requirements_met;
> + } testlist[] = {
> + {
> + .name = "simple copy",
> + .test = test_copy,
> + .requirements_met = true,
> + },
> + {
> + .name = "generic error checks",
> + .test = test_errors,
> + .requirements_met = true,
> + },
> + {
> + .name = "copy with storage keys",
> + .test = test_copy_key,
> + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,
> + },
> + {
> + .name = "copy with key storage protection override",
> + .test = test_copy_key_storage_prot_override,
> + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,
> + },
> + {
> + .name = "copy with key fetch protection",
> + .test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot,
> + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,
> + },
> + {
> + .name = "copy with key fetch protection override",
> + .test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot_override,
> + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,
> + },
> + {
> + .name = "error checks with key",
> + .test = test_errors_key,
> + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,
> + },
> + {
> + .name = "termination",
> + .test = test_termination,
> + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,
> + },
> + {
> + .name = "error checks with key storage protection override",
> + .test = test_errors_key_storage_prot_override,
> + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,
> + },
> + {
> + .name = "error checks without key fetch prot override",
> + .test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_not_enabled,
> + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,
> + },
> + {
> + .name = "error checks with key fetch prot override",
> + .test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_enabled,
> + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,

I wonder whether it would rather make sense to check for "extension_cap & 1"
instead of "extension_cap > 0" ?

Anyway:
Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>