> On Sep 30, 2019, at 5:03 PM, Marc Orr <marcorr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> 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. Thanks for the willingness, but I don’t know whether any intrusive change is needed at the moment. Even just getting the print-out to have something like “(KVM-specific)” comment would be enough, assuming the test can easily be disabled (as is the case with atomic_switch_overflow_msrs_test).
