Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 09/14] powerpc/ppc64: adapt arm's setup

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 12:50:12PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 08.02.2016 19:53, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > Copy arm's setup code (also DT based) over to powerpc, adapting
> > it a bit. Also bring over arm's setup selftest, giving powerpc
> > its first test.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  lib/powerpc/asm/setup.h | 27 +++++++++++++++
> >  lib/powerpc/setup.c     | 91 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  lib/ppc64/asm/setup.h   |  1 +
> >  powerpc/cstart64.S      |  9 +++++
> >  powerpc/selftest.c      | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  5 files changed, 189 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >  create mode 100644 lib/powerpc/asm/setup.h
> >  create mode 100644 lib/ppc64/asm/setup.h
> ...
> > diff --git a/powerpc/selftest.c b/powerpc/selftest.c
> > index 2f2a5215dd55c..3dd7ce9945307 100644
> > --- a/powerpc/selftest.c
> > +++ b/powerpc/selftest.c
> > @@ -1,7 +1,65 @@
> > +/*
> > + * Test the framework itself. These tests confirm that setup works.
> > + *
> > + * Copyright (C) 2016, Red Hat Inc, Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > + *
> > + * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU LGPL, version 2.
> > + */
> >  #include <libcflat.h>
> > +#include <util.h>
> > +#include <alloc.h>		/* phys_addr_t */
> > +#include <asm/setup.h>
> >  
> > -int main(void)
> > +static void check_setup(int argc, char **argv)
> >  {
> > -	printf("hello world\n");
> > -	return 0;
> > +	int nr_tests = 0, len, i;
> > +	long val;
> > +
> > +	for (i = 0; i < argc; ++i) {
> > +
> > +		len = parse_keyval(argv[i], &val);
> > +		if (len == -1)
> > +			continue;
> > +
> > +		argv[i][len] = '\0';
> > +		report_prefix_push(argv[i]);
> > +
> > +		if (strcmp(argv[i], "mem") == 0) {
> > +
> > +			phys_addr_t memsize = PHYSICAL_END - PHYSICAL_START;
> > +			phys_addr_t expected = ((phys_addr_t)val)*1024*1024;
> > +
> > +			report("size = %d MB", memsize == expected,
> > +							memsize/1024/1024);
> > +			++nr_tests;
> > +
> > +		} else if (strcmp(argv[i], "smp") == 0) {
> > +
> > +			report("nr_cpus = %d", nr_cpus == (int)val, nr_cpus);
> > +			++nr_tests;
> 
> Could you maybe add a check for nr_cpus <= NR_CPUS somewhere and print a
> friendly warning message if it the amount of CPUs exceeds NR_CPUS?
> Otherwise you only get a very cryptic assert() message if you
> accidentially specify too many CPUs ... (it just happened to me, and it
> took a while till I understood what was wrong).

Will do.

Thanks,
drew
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux