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 <[email protected]>
---
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,
+ },
+ };
ksft_print_header();
-
ksft_set_plan(ARRAY_SIZE(testlist));
- extension_cap = kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP_EXTENSION);
for (idx = 0; idx < ARRAY_SIZE(testlist); idx++) {
- if (extension_cap >= testlist[idx].extension) {
+ if (testlist[idx].requirements_met) {
testlist[idx].test();
ksft_test_result_pass("%s\n", testlist[idx].name);
} else {
- ksft_test_result_skip("%s - extension level %d not supported\n",
- testlist[idx].name,
- testlist[idx].extension);
+ ksft_test_result_skip("%s - requirements not met (kernel has extension cap %#x\n)",
+ testlist[idx].name, extension_cap);
}
}
--
2.34.1
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 <[email protected]>
> ---
> 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 <[email protected]>
On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 08:52 +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> 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 <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > 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);
> > }
> >
[...]
> >
> > + } 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" ?
The cap should always have been a bitmap, but unfortunately I didn't initially
define it as one, the storage key extension must be supported if the cap > 0.
So the test reflects that and may catch an error in the future.
>
> Anyway:
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <[email protected]>
>
Thanks!