On 22/09/2021 13.36, Janosch Frank wrote:
On 9/22/21 11:12 AM, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 07:18:03 +0000
Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
RC 0x100 is not an error but a notice that we could have gotten more
data from the Ultravisor if we had asked for it. So let's tolerate
them in our tests.
Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
s390x/uv-guest.c | 4 ++--
s390x/uv-host.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/s390x/uv-guest.c b/s390x/uv-guest.c
index f05ae4c3..e7446e03 100644
--- a/s390x/uv-guest.c
+++ b/s390x/uv-guest.c
@@ -70,8 +70,8 @@ static void test_query(void)
report(cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_INV_LEN, "length");
uvcb.header.len = sizeof(uvcb);
- cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb);
- report(cc == 0 && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED, "successful query");
+ uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb);
+ report(uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED || uvcb.header.rc
== 0x100, "successful query");
if you want to be even more pedantic:
report(cc == 0 && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED ||
cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == 0x100, ...
Yeah I pondered about that but at the end I chose to drop the cc check
Well, but we're in the kvm-unit-tests here where we check for the exact
behavior of the system ... so I'd vote for keeping/extening the cc checking,
even if it's more code to read in the end.
Thomas
