> >> Thanks for caring, but it would be better to explicitly skip the test if it > >> is not running on bare-metal. For instance, I missed this thread and needed > >> to check why the test fails on bare-metal... > >> > >> Besides, it seems that v6 was used and not v7, so the error messages are > >> strange: > >> > >> Test suite: atomic_switch_overflow_msrs_test > >> FAIL: exit_reason, 18, is 2147483682. > >> FAIL: exit_qual, 0, is 513. > >> SUMMARY: 11 tests, 2 unexpected failures > >> > >> I also think that printing the exit-reason in hex format would be more > >> readable. > > > > Exit reasons are enumerated in decimal rather than hex in the SDM > > (volume 3, appendix C). > > I know, but when the failed VM entry indication is on, it is just a huge > mess. Never mind, this is a minor issue. > > > To be clear, are you saying you "opted in" to the test on bare metal, > > and got confused when it failed? Or, are you saying that our patch on > > unittest.cfg to make the test not run by default didn't work? > > I ran it on bare-metal and needed to spend some time to realize that it is > expected to fail on bare-metal “by design”. Ack. Maybe we should move tests like this into a *_virt_only.c counter-part? E.g., we could create a new, opt-in, file, vmx_tests_virt_only.c for this test. When similar scenarios arise in the future, this new precedent could be replicated, to make it obvious which tests are expected to fail on bare metal.
