On 30.03.20 14:20, Janosch Frank wrote:
> Subcode 3.2.2 is handled by KVM/QEMU and should therefore be tested
> a bit more thorough.
>
> In this test we set a custom name and uuid through the QEMU command
> line. Both parameters will be passed to the guest on a stsi subcode
> 3.2.2 call and will then be checked.
>
> We also compare the total and configured cpu numbers against the smp
> reported numbers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> s390x/stsi.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> s390x/unittests.cfg | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 63 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/s390x/stsi.c b/s390x/stsi.c
> index e9206bca137d2edb..10e588a78cc05186 100644
> --- a/s390x/stsi.c
> +++ b/s390x/stsi.c
> @@ -14,7 +14,28 @@
> #include <asm/page.h>
> #include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
> #include <asm/interrupt.h>
> +#include <smp.h>
>
> +struct stsi_322 {
> + uint8_t reserved[31];
> + uint8_t count;
> + struct {
> + uint8_t reserved2[4];
I dislike aligning the members using double-spaces ...
> + uint16_t total_cpus;
> + uint16_t conf_cpus;
> + uint16_t standby_cpus;
> + uint16_t reserved_cpus;
> + uint8_t name[8];
> + uint32_t caf;
> + uint8_t cpi[16];
> + uint8_t reserved5[3];
... e.g., here it's not aligned anymore. Just use single spaces.
> + uint8_t ext_name_encoding;
> + uint32_t reserved3;
> + uint8_t uuid[16];
> + } vm[8];
> + uint8_t reserved4[1504];
> + uint8_t ext_names[8][256];
> +};
> static uint8_t pagebuf[PAGE_SIZE * 2] __attribute__((aligned(PAGE_SIZE * 2)));
>
> static void test_specs(void)
> @@ -76,11 +97,52 @@ static void test_fc(void)
> report(stsi_get_fc(pagebuf) >= 2, "query fc >= 2");
> }
>
> +static void test_3_2_2(void)
> +{
> + int rc;
> + /* EBCDIC for "kvm-unit" */
> + uint8_t vm_name[] = { 0x92, 0xa5, 0x94, 0x60, 0xa4, 0x95, 0x89, 0xa3 };
> + uint8_t uuid[] = { 0x0f, 0xb8, 0x4a, 0x86, 0x72, 0x7c,
> + 0x11, 0xea, 0xbc, 0x55, 0x02, 0x42, 0xac, 0x13,
> + 0x00, 0x03 };
> + /* EBCDIC for "KVM/" */
> + uint8_t cpi_kvm[] = { 0xd2, 0xe5, 0xd4, 0x61 };
All of these can be const.
> + const char *vm_name_ext = "kvm-unit-test";
> + struct stsi_322 *data = (void *)pagebuf;
> +
> + /* Is the function code available at all? */
> + if (stsi_get_fc(pagebuf) < 3)
Maybe report_skip() ?
> + return;
> +
> + report_prefix_push("3.2.2");
> + rc = stsi(pagebuf, 3, 2, 2);
> + report(!rc, "call");
> +
> + /* For now we concentrate on KVM/QEMU */
> + if (memcmp(&data->vm[0].cpi, cpi_kvm, sizeof(cpi_kvm)))
Maybe report_skip() ?
> + goto out;
> +
> + report(data->vm[0].total_cpus == smp_query_num_cpus(), "cpu # total");
> + report(data->vm[0].conf_cpus == smp_query_num_cpus(), "cpu # configured");
> + report(data->vm[0].standby_cpus == 0, "cpu # standby");
> + report(data->vm[0].reserved_cpus == 0, "cpu # reserved");
IIRC, using -smp 1,maxcpus=X, you could also test the reported reserved
CPUs.
Also passes under TCG, nice :)
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
