On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 07:52:18 +0000
Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> There's no guarantee that we even find a device at the address we're
> testing for if we're not running under QEMU.
>
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> s390x/css.c | 10 +++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/s390x/css.c b/s390x/css.c
> index a333e55a..52d35f49 100644
> --- a/s390x/css.c
> +++ b/s390x/css.c
> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
> #include <interrupt.h>
> #include <asm/arch_def.h>
> #include <alloc_page.h>
> +#include <hardware.h>
>
> #include <malloc_io.h>
> #include <css.h>
> @@ -641,6 +642,12 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> int i;
>
> + /* There's no guarantee where our devices are without qemu */
> + if (detect_host() != HOST_IS_KVM && detect_host() != HOST_IS_TCG) {
you could also do !host_is_kvm() && !host_is_tcg() , I think it's more
readable, but I do not have strong opinions regarding that
> + report_skip("Not running under QEMU");
> + goto done;
> + }
> +
> report_prefix_push("Channel Subsystem");
the prefix push should probably go before the if
> enable_io_isc(0x80 >> IO_SCH_ISC);
> for (i = 0; tests[i].name; i++) {
> @@ -648,7 +655,8 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> tests[i].func();
> report_prefix_pop();
> }
> - report_prefix_pop();
>
> +done:
> + report_prefix_pop();
> return report_summary();
> }
