Auger Eric <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hi Vitaly,
>
> On 1/20/20 11:53 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
...
>>> +
>>> +static struct test tests[] = {
>>> + /* name, supported, custom setup, l2 code, exit code, custom check, finished */
>>> + {"vmmcall", NULL, NULL, l2_vmcall, SVM_EXIT_VMMCALL},
>>> + {"vmrun", NULL, NULL, l2_vmrun, SVM_EXIT_VMRUN},
>>> + {"CR3 read intercept", NULL, prepare_cr3_intercept, l2_cr3_read, SVM_EXIT_READ_CR3},
>>> +};
>>
>> selftests are usualy not that well structured :-) E.g. we don't have
>> sub-tests and a way to specify which one to run so there is a single
>> flow when everything is being executed. I'd suggest to keep things as
>> simple as possibe (especially in the basic 'svm' test).
> In this case the differences between the tests is very tiny. One line on
> L2 and one line on L1 to check the exit status. I wondered whether it
> deserves to have separate test files for that. I did not intend to run
> the subtests separately nor to add many more subtests but rather saw all
> of them as a single basic test. More complex tests would be definitively
> separate.
>
> But if the consensus is to keep each tests separate, I will do.
>
No, I wasn't asking for that, it's just that the 'tests' array looks
like we're going to add more and more here (like we do in
kvm-unit-tests). If it's not the case you can probably simplify the code
by executing these three checks consequently without defining any
'sub-test' stuctures (like we do for other selftests). But I don't have
a strong opinion on this so we can keep things the way they are.
--
Vitaly
