Hi Vitaly, Paolo,
On 1/21/20 1:17 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 21/01/20 12:12, Auger Eric wrote:
>>>> +
>>>> +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.
>
> I would just leave this deeper kind of test to kvm-unit-tests and keep
> selftests for API tests. So this would mean basically only keep (and
> inline) the vmmcall test.
OK this makes sense. I implemented those 3 basic tests as a proof of
concept but this definitively overlaps with kvm-unit-tests coverage. I
will focus on new tests and leverage the kselftest framework instead.
Thanks
Eric
>
> Paolo
>
