Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: KVM: AMD Nested SVM test infrastructure
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Cc:     thuth@redhat.com, drjones@redhat.com, eric.auger.pro@gmail.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
References: <20200117173753.21434-1-eric.auger@redhat.com>
 <87pnfeflgb.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
 <a288001b-56a6-363b-18c0-18a1e1876ccc@redhat.com>
 <f156e2e0-6c75-30c2-c295-b87ee1b36600@redhat.com>
From:   Auger Eric <eric.auger@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <06c0cb50-75f4-2c25-c064-37e0709575c4@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Jan 2020 13:50:07 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f156e2e0-6c75-30c2-c295-b87ee1b36600@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Vitaly, Paolo,

On 1/21/20 1:17 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 21/01/20 12:12, Auger Eric wrote:
>>>> +
>>>> +static struct test tests[] = {
>>>> +	/* name, supported, custom setup, l2 code, exit code, custom check, finished */
>>>> +	{"vmmcall", NULL, NULL, l2_vmcall, SVM_EXIT_VMMCALL},
>>>> +	{"vmrun", NULL, NULL, l2_vmrun, SVM_EXIT_VMRUN},
>>>> +	{"CR3 read intercept", NULL, prepare_cr3_intercept, l2_cr3_read, SVM_EXIT_READ_CR3},
>>>> +};
>>> selftests are usualy not that well structured :-) E.g. we don't have
>>> sub-tests and a way to specify which one to run so there is a single
>>> flow when everything is being executed. I'd suggest to keep things as
>>> simple as possibe (especially in the basic 'svm' test).
>> In this case the differences between the tests is very tiny. One line on
>> L2 and one line on L1 to check the exit status. I wondered whether it
>> deserves to have separate test files for that. I did not intend to run
>> the subtests separately nor to add many more subtests but rather saw all
>> of them as a single basic test. More complex tests would be definitively
>> separate.
> 
> I would just leave this deeper kind of test to kvm-unit-tests and keep
> selftests for API tests.  So this would mean basically only keep (and
> inline) the vmmcall test.

OK this makes sense. I implemented those 3 basic tests as a proof of
concept but this definitively overlaps with kvm-unit-tests coverage. I
will focus on new tests and leverage the kselftest framework instead.

Thanks

Eric
> 
> Paolo
>