Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v7 2/2] x86: nvmx: test max atomic switch MSRs

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

 



> >>>> 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).

"(as is the case with atomic_switch_overflow_msrs_test)" --> now I'm
confused. Are you saying that the first test,
atomic_switch_max_msrs_test() failed on bare metal? That test is
expected to pass on bare metal. However, I did not test it on bare
metal.




[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