Thanks. Got it.
在 2021/8/14 7:26, Paolo Bonzini 写道:
On 13/08/21 19:01, Shuah Khan wrote:
On 7/9/21 12:37 AM, Chen Lifu wrote:
Compile setftests on x86_64 occurs following error:
make -C tools/testing/selftests
...
x86_64/hyperv_features.c:618:2: warning: implicit declaration of
function ‘vm_handle_exception’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
618 | vm_handle_exception(vm, GP_VECTOR, guest_gp_handler);
/usr/bin/ld: /tmp/cclOnpml.o: in function `main':
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/hyperv_features.c:618: undefined
reference to `vm_handle_exception'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
The reason is that commit b78f4a596692 ("KVM: selftests: Rename
vm_handle_exception")
renamed "vm_handle_exception" function to
"vm_install_exception_handler" function.
Fix it by replacing "vm_handle_exception" with
"vm_install_exception_handler"
in corresponding selftests files.
Signed-off-by: Chen Lifu <chenlifu@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/hyperv_features.c | 2 +-
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/mmu_role_test.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Please include kvm in the commit summary. I think it is not getting
the right attention because of the summary line.
The same patch was already committed:
commit f8f0edabcc09fafd695ed2adc0eb825104e35d5c
Author: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu Jul 1 08:19:28 2021 +0100
KVM: selftests: x86: Address missing vm_install_exception_handler
conversions
Commit b78f4a59669 ("KVM: selftests: Rename vm_handle_exception")
raced with a couple of new x86 tests, missing two vm_handle_exception
to vm_install_exception_handler conversions.
Help the two broken tests to catch up with the new world.
Cc: Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx>
CC: Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
Message-Id: <20210701071928.2971053-1-maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
For the other patch, returning 0 is going to cause issues elsewhere
in the tests. Either the test is failed immediately, or all callers
must be examined carefully.
Paolo
.
