On 20/09/2019 10.10, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 20.09.19 09:50, Janosch Frank wrote:
>> Alignment and selectors test order is not specified and so, if you
>> have an unaligned address and invalid selectors it's up to the
>> hypervisor to decide which error is presented.
>>
>> Let's add valid selectors to the unalignmnet test and add selector
>> tests.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> s390x/stsi.c | 4 +++-
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/s390x/stsi.c b/s390x/stsi.c
>> index 7232cb0..c5bd0a2 100644
>> --- a/s390x/stsi.c
>> +++ b/s390x/stsi.c
>> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ static void test_specs(void)
>>
>> report_prefix_push("unaligned");
>> expect_pgm_int();
>> - stsi(pagebuf + 42, 1, 0, 0);
>> + stsi(pagebuf + 42, 1, 1, 1);
>> check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIFICATION);
>> report_prefix_pop();
>>
>> @@ -71,6 +71,8 @@ static inline unsigned long stsi_get_fc(void *addr)
>> static void test_fc(void)
>> {
>> report("invalid fc", stsi(pagebuf, 7, 0, 0) == 3);
While you're at it, wouldn't it be better to use "(pagebuf, 7, 1, 1)" here?
Thomas
>> + report("invalid selector 1", stsi(pagebuf, 1, 0, 1) == 3);
>> + report("invalid selector 2", stsi(pagebuf, 1, 1, 0) == 3);
>> report("query fc >= 2", stsi_get_fc(pagebuf) >= 2);
>> }
>>
>>
>
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
