Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-57468-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: selftests: Fix GUEST_PRINTF() format warnings in ARM
 code
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
CC: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <kvmarm@lists.linux.dev>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20240202234603.366925-1-seanjc@google.com>
From: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <3188e6f1-f150-f7d0-6c2b-5b7608b0b012@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:00:08 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.9.0
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20240202234603.366925-1-seanjc@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2024/2/3 7:46, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Fix a pile of -Wformat warnings in the KVM ARM selftests code, almost all
> of which are benign "long" versus "long long" issues (selftests are 64-bit
> only, and the guest printf code treats "ll" the same as "l").  The code
> itself isn't problematic, but the warnings make it impossible to build ARM
> selftests with -Werror, which does detect real issues from time to time.
> 
> Opportunistically have GUEST_ASSERT_BITMAP_REG() interpret set_expected,
> which is a bool, as an unsigned decimal value, i.e. have it print '0' or
> '1' instead of '0x0' or '0x1'.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>

Tested-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>

> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/arch_timer.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/arch_timer.c
> index 274b8465b42a..d5e8f365aa01 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/arch_timer.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/arch_timer.c
> @@ -158,9 +158,9 @@ static void guest_validate_irq(unsigned int intid,
>   
>   	/* Basic 'timer condition met' check */
>   	__GUEST_ASSERT(xcnt >= cval,
> -		       "xcnt = 0x%llx, cval = 0x%llx, xcnt_diff_us = 0x%llx",
> +		       "xcnt = 0x%lx, cval = 0x%lx, xcnt_diff_us = 0x%lx",
>   		       xcnt, cval, xcnt_diff_us);
> -	__GUEST_ASSERT(xctl & CTL_ISTATUS, "xcnt = 0x%llx", xcnt);
> +	__GUEST_ASSERT(xctl & CTL_ISTATUS, "xcnt = 0x%lx", xcnt);

Unrelated to your patch, but it looks to me that we actually want to
print 'xctl' instead of 'xcnt' in the second __GUEST_ASSERT().

Thanks,
Zenghui