On 12/01/2018 13:17, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:33:55AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 12.01.2018 11:10, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 10/01/2018 22:53, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ static uint64_t ram_size;
>>>> static void mem_init(phys_addr_t freemem_start, phys_addr_t mem_end)
>>>> {
>>>> phys_alloc_init(freemem_start, ram_size - freemem_start);
>>>> + setup_vm();
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> void sclp_memory_setup(void)
>>>
>>> I'd leave setup_vm() to tests if not strictly necessary.
>>>
>>> Paolo
>>>
>>
>> Makes handling of program exceptions unnecessary complicated. (which
>> functions we're allowed to call etc.) And DAT can be easily disabled in
>> tests that require it instead.
>>
>> So as long as there is no good reason for it, I prefer to keep it simple
>> and always set it up.
>>
>
> I've been considering some changes for ARM that allow setup_vm() to be
> conditionally skipped for unit tests that require that. I kicked around
> several ideas as to what the condition should use. Currently I have an
> auxinfo flag (added to a newly introduced flags field) which is set at
> build time with a Makefile rule prototyped for it.
>
> Long story, short; I think the way David is doing it now, which is like
> ARM, is a fine start, and then if necessary we can extend the framework
> to allow this auxinfo flag, or whatever, to give some flexibility to
> unit tests that need it.
Yeah, that's okay.
Most x86 tests probably can use setup_vm unconditionally too.
Paolo
