Ping... Thanks. On Fri, 2021-11-19 at 15:15 +0800, Robert Hoo wrote: > From: Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > The actual value of vmcs12.vmcs_enum is set by QEMU, with hard code, > while the expected value in this test is got from literally > traversing > vmcs12 fields. They probably mismatch, depends on KVM version and > QEMU > version used. It doesn't mean QEMU or KVM is buggy. > > We deprecate this failure report, as we "don't see any point in > fighting > too hard with QEMU."[1] > We keep its log here as hint. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/YZWqJwUrF2Id9hM2@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Signed-off-by: Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Robert Hoo <robert.hu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > x86/vmx.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/x86/vmx.c b/x86/vmx.c > index 7a2f7a3..7e191dd 100644 > --- a/x86/vmx.c > +++ b/x86/vmx.c > @@ -379,8 +379,7 @@ static void test_vmwrite_vmread(void) > vmcs_enum_max = (rdmsr(MSR_IA32_VMX_VMCS_ENUM) & > VMCS_FIELD_INDEX_MASK) > >> VMCS_FIELD_INDEX_SHIFT; > max_index = find_vmcs_max_index(); > - report(vmcs_enum_max == max_index, > - "VMX_VMCS_ENUM.MAX_INDEX expected: %x, actual: %x", > + printf("VMX_VMCS_ENUM.MAX_INDEX expected: %x, actual: %x\n", > max_index, vmcs_enum_max); > > assert(!vmcs_clear(vmcs));
