On Tue, 2022-01-25 at 12:54 +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 21/01/2022 16.09, Nico Boehr wrote:
>
[...]
> > diff --git a/s390x/css.c b/s390x/css.c
> > index 881206ba1cef..afe1f71bb576 100644
> > --- a/s390x/css.c
> > +++ b/s390x/css.c
> > @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ static int test_device_sid;
> > static struct senseid *senseid;
> > struct ccw1 *ccw;
> >
> > +char alignment_test_page[PAGE_SIZE]
> > __attribute__((aligned(PAGE_SIZE)));
>
> Alternatively, you could also use alloc_page() in that new
> function... not
> sure what's nicer, though.
I don't have a strong opinion. Happy to change to whatever you or the
others prefer.
> >
> > +static void test_msch(void)
> > +{
[...]
> > +
> > + report_prefix_push("Invalid SCHIB");
> > + old_pmcw_flags = schib.pmcw.flags;
> > + for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(invalid_pmcw_flags); i++) {
> > + invalid_flag = invalid_pmcw_flags[i];
> > +
> > + report_prefix_pushf("PMCW flag bit %d set",
> > invalid_flag);
> > +
> > + schib.pmcw.flags = old_pmcw_flags | BIT(15 -
> > invalid_flag);
> > + expect_pgm_int();
> > + msch(test_device_sid, &schib);
> > + check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_OPERAND);
> > +
> > + report_prefix_pop();
> > + }
>
> Maybe restore schib.pmcw.flags = old_pmcw_flags at the end, in case
> someone
> wants to add more tests later?
Yes, awesome idea, will do.
>
> > + report_prefix_pop();
> > +}
> > +
> > static struct {
> > const char *name;
> > void (*func)(void);
> > @@ -343,6 +393,7 @@ static struct {
> > { "measurement block (schm)", test_schm },
> > { "measurement block format0", test_schm_fmt0 },
> > { "measurement block format1", test_schm_fmt1 },
> > + { "msch", test_msch },
> > { NULL, NULL }
> > };
> >
>
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
Thanks.
Nico
