On 4/14/22 12:53, Thomas Huth wrote:
> The memop test currently does not have any output (unless one of the
> TEST_ASSERT statement fails), so it's hard to say for a user whether
> a certain new sub-test has been included in the binary or not. Let's
> make this a little bit more user-friendly and include some TAP output
> via the kselftests.h interface.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <[email protected]>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 90 ++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 73 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> index b04c2c1b3c30..a2783d9afcac 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
>
> #include "test_util.h"
> #include "kvm_util.h"
> +#include "kselftest.h"
>
> enum mop_target {
> LOGICAL,
> @@ -648,33 +649,88 @@ static void test_errors(void)
> kvm_vm_free(t.kvm_vm);
> }
>
> +struct testdef {
> + const char *name;
> + void (*test)(void);
> + bool needs_extension;
Please make this numeric. You could also rename it to required_extension or similar.
> +} testlist[] = {
> + {
> + .name = "simple copy",
> + .test = test_copy,
> + .needs_extension = false,
> + },
> + {
> + .name = "copy with storage keys",
> + .test = test_copy_key,
> + .needs_extension = true,
> + },
> + {
> + .name = "copy with key storage protection override",
> + .test = test_copy_key_storage_prot_override,
> + .needs_extension = true,
> + },
> + {
> + .name = "copy with key fetch protection",
> + .test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot,
> + .needs_extension = true,
> + },
> + {
> + .name = "copy with key fetch protection override",
> + .test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot_override,
> + .needs_extension = true,
> + },
> + {
> + .name = "error checks with key",
> + .test = test_errors_key,
> + .needs_extension = true,
> + },
> + {
> + .name = "error checks with key storage protection override",
> + .test = test_errors_key_storage_prot_override,
> + .needs_extension = true,
> + },
> + {
> + .name = "error checks without key fetch prot override",
> + .test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_not_enabled,
> + .needs_extension = true,
> + },
> + {
> + .name = "error checks with key fetch prot override",
> + .test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_enabled,
> + .needs_extension = true,
> + },
> + {
> + .name = "generic error checks",
> + .test = test_errors,
> + .needs_extension = false,
> + },
> +};
> +
> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> - int memop_cap, extension_cap;
> + int memop_cap, extension_cap, idx;
>
> setbuf(stdout, NULL); /* Tell stdout not to buffer its content */
>
> + ksft_print_header();
> +
> memop_cap = kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP);
> extension_cap = kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP_EXTENSION);
> if (!memop_cap) {
> - print_skip("CAP_S390_MEM_OP not supported");
> - exit(KSFT_SKIP);
> + ksft_exit_skip("CAP_S390_MEM_OP not supported.\n");
> }
>
> - test_copy();
> - if (extension_cap > 0) {
> - test_copy_key();
> - test_copy_key_storage_prot_override();
> - test_copy_key_fetch_prot();
> - test_copy_key_fetch_prot_override();
> - test_errors_key();
> - test_errors_key_storage_prot_override();
> - test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_not_enabled();
> - test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_enabled();
> - } else {
> - print_skip("storage key memop extension not supported");
> + ksft_set_plan(ARRAY_SIZE(testlist));
> +
> + for (idx = 0; idx < ARRAY_SIZE(testlist); idx++) {
> + if (!testlist[idx].needs_extension || extension_cap) {
Then check here that extension_cap >= the required extension.
This way the test can easily be adapted in case of future extensions.
> + testlist[idx].test();
> + ksft_test_result_pass("%s\n", testlist[idx].name);
> + } else {
> + ksft_test_result_skip("%s - storage key memop not supported\n",
> + testlist[idx].name);
> + }
> }
> - test_errors();
>
> - return 0;
> + ksft_finished();
> }
On 14/04/2022 14.48, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> On 4/14/22 12:53, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> The memop test currently does not have any output (unless one of the
>> TEST_ASSERT statement fails), so it's hard to say for a user whether
>> a certain new sub-test has been included in the binary or not. Let's
>> make this a little bit more user-friendly and include some TAP output
>> via the kselftests.h interface.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 90 ++++++++++++++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 73 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>> index b04c2c1b3c30..a2783d9afcac 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
>>
>> #include "test_util.h"
>> #include "kvm_util.h"
>> +#include "kselftest.h"
>>
>> enum mop_target {
>> LOGICAL,
>> @@ -648,33 +649,88 @@ static void test_errors(void)
>> kvm_vm_free(t.kvm_vm);
>> }
>>
>> +struct testdef {
>> + const char *name;
>> + void (*test)(void);
>> + bool needs_extension;
>
> Please make this numeric. You could also rename it to required_extension or similar.
[...]
>> +
>> + for (idx = 0; idx < ARRAY_SIZE(testlist); idx++) {
>> + if (!testlist[idx].needs_extension || extension_cap) {
>
> Then check here that extension_cap >= the required extension.
> This way the test can easily be adapted in case of future extensions.
Not sure whether a ">=" will really be safe, since a future extension does
not necessarily assert that previous extensions are available at the same time.
But I can still turn the bool into a numeric to make it a little bit more
flexible for future use.
Thomas
On 4/19/22 19:40, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 14/04/2022 14.48, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
>> On 4/14/22 12:53, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> The memop test currently does not have any output (unless one of the
>>> TEST_ASSERT statement fails), so it's hard to say for a user whether
>>> a certain new sub-test has been included in the binary or not. Let's
>>> make this a little bit more user-friendly and include some TAP output
>>> via the kselftests.h interface.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 90 ++++++++++++++++++-----
>>> 1 file changed, 73 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>>> index b04c2c1b3c30..a2783d9afcac 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>>> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
>>> #include "test_util.h"
>>> #include "kvm_util.h"
>>> +#include "kselftest.h"
>>> enum mop_target {
>>> LOGICAL,
>>> @@ -648,33 +649,88 @@ static void test_errors(void)
>>> kvm_vm_free(t.kvm_vm);
>>> }
>>> +struct testdef {
>>> + const char *name;
>>> + void (*test)(void);
>>> + bool needs_extension;
>>
>> Please make this numeric. You could also rename it to required_extension or similar.
> [...]
>>> +
>>> + for (idx = 0; idx < ARRAY_SIZE(testlist); idx++) {
>>> + if (!testlist[idx].needs_extension || extension_cap) {
>>
>> Then check here that extension_cap >= the required extension.
>> This way the test can easily be adapted in case of future extensions.
>
> Not sure whether a ">=" will really be safe, since a future extension does not necessarily assert that previous extensions are available at the same time.
Hmm, I intend for that to hold. In any case, for the existing extension we have committed to it, e.g.
the documentation says:
Absolute accesses are permitted for the VM ioctl if KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP_EXTENSION
is > 0.
So, if we introduce an extension and allow for it to be removed with a higher extension number,
when we add testing support for that extension we'd have to change the capability check,
but the existing test case would not break.
I guess the most flexible way would be to initialize the array in the middle of main, then
you could do .skip = !extension_cap and in the future whatever expression makes sense, but
it's kinda ugly and should not be necessary anyway.
>
> But I can still turn the bool into a numeric to make it a little bit more flexible for future use.
>
> Thomas
>