Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 13/16] s390x: css: checking for CSS extensions

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

 





On 4/6/21 5:50 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Tue,  6 Apr 2021 09:40:50 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

We verify that these extensions are not install before running simple

s/not install/installed/ ?

Testing extensions that are not installed does not make that much sense
:)

tests.

Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
  lib/s390x/css.h |  2 ++
  s390x/css.c     | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  2 files changed, 33 insertions(+)

diff --git a/lib/s390x/css.h b/lib/s390x/css.h
index d824e34..08b2974 100644
--- a/lib/s390x/css.h
+++ b/lib/s390x/css.h
@@ -338,7 +338,9 @@ struct chsc_scsc {
  	uint8_t reserved[9];
  	struct chsc_header res;
  	uint32_t res_fmt;
+#define CSSC_ORB_EXTENSIONS		0
  #define CSSC_EXTENDED_MEASUREMENT_BLOCK 48
+#define CSSC_FC_EXTENSIONS		88
  	uint64_t general_char[255];
  	uint64_t chsc_char[254];
  };
diff --git a/s390x/css.c b/s390x/css.c
index 26f5da6..f8c6688 100644
--- a/s390x/css.c
+++ b/s390x/css.c
@@ -229,6 +229,35 @@ static void ssch_orb_ctrl(void)
  	}
  }
+static void ssch_orb_extension(void)
+{
+	if (!css_test_general_feature(CSSC_ORB_EXTENSIONS)) {
+		report_skip("ORB extensions not installed");
+		return;
+	}
+	/* Place holder for checking ORB extensions */
+	report_info("ORB extensions installed but not tested");
+}
+
+static void ssch_orb_fcx(void)
+{
+	uint32_t tmp = orb->ctrl;
+
+	if (!css_test_general_feature(CSSC_FC_EXTENSIONS)) {
+		report_skip("Fibre-channel extensions not installed");
+		return;
+	}
+
+	report_prefix_push("Channel-Program Type Control");
+	orb->ctrl |= ORB_CTRL_CPTC;
+	expect_pgm_int();
+	ssch(test_device_sid, orb);
+	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_OPERAND);
+	report_prefix_pop();

I don't quite understand what you're testing here; shouldn't the device
accept a transport-mode orb if fcx is installed? The problem would be
if the program consists of ccws instead, so it's more a malformed block
handling test?

Yes, OK, non sense.
I let fall this test.

--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen



[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