On Thu, Aug 12 2021, Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In the previous version we did only check that one ISC dedicated by
> Linux for I/O is working fine.
>
> However, there is no reason to prefer one ISC to another ISC, we are
> free to take anyone.
>
> Let's check all possible ISC to verify that QEMU/KVM is really ISC
> independent.
It's probably a good idea to test for a non-standard isc. Not sure
whether we need all of them, but it doesn't hurt.
Do you also have plans for a test to verify the priority handling for
the different iscs?
>
> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> s390x/css.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
(...)
> @@ -142,7 +143,6 @@ static void sense_id(void)
>
> static void css_init(void)
> {
> - assert(register_io_int_func(css_irq_io) == 0);
> lowcore_ptr->io_int_param = 0;
>
> report(get_chsc_scsc(), "Store Channel Characteristics");
> @@ -351,11 +351,20 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> int i;
>
> report_prefix_push("Channel Subsystem");
> - enable_io_isc(0x80 >> IO_SCH_ISC);
> - for (i = 0; tests[i].name; i++) {
> - report_prefix_push(tests[i].name);
> - tests[i].func();
> - report_prefix_pop();
> +
> + for (io_isc = 0; io_isc < 8; io_isc++) {
> + report_info("ISC: %d\n", io_isc);
> +
> + enable_io_isc(0x80 >> io_isc);
> + assert(register_io_int_func(css_irq_io) == 0);
Why are you registering/deregistering the irq handler multiple times? It
should be the same, regardless of the isc?
> +
> + for (i = 0; tests[i].name; i++) {
> + report_prefix_push(tests[i].name);
> + tests[i].func();
> + report_prefix_pop();
> + }
> +
> + unregister_io_int_func(css_irq_io);
> }
> report_prefix_pop();
>
>
