On 03/08/2022 15.58, Nico Boehr wrote:
QEMU doesn't provide EQBS/SQBS instructions, so we should check they
result in an exception.
I somewhat fail to see the exact purpose of this patch... QEMU still doesn't
emulate a lot of other instructions, too, so why are we checking now these
QBS instructions? Why not all the others? Why do we need a test to verify
that there is an exception in this case - was there a bug somewhere that
didn't cause an exception in certain circumstances?
Signed-off-by: Nico Boehr <nrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
s390x/intercept.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
diff --git a/s390x/intercept.c b/s390x/intercept.c
index 9e826b6c79ad..48eb2d22a2cc 100644
--- a/s390x/intercept.c
+++ b/s390x/intercept.c
@@ -197,6 +197,34 @@ static void test_diag318(void)
}
+static void test_qbs(void)
+{
+ report_prefix_push("qbs");
You should definitely add a comment here, explaining why this is only a test
for QEMU and saying that this could be removed as soon as QEMU implements
these instructions later - otherwise this would be very confusing to the
readers later (if they forget or cannot check the commit message).
+ if (!host_is_qemu()) {
+ report_skip("QEMU-only test");
+ report_prefix_pop();
+ return;
+ }
+
+ report_prefix_push("sqbs");
+ expect_pgm_int();
+ asm volatile(
+ " .insn rsy,0xeb000000008a,0,0,0(0)\n"
+ : : : "memory", "cc");
+ check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_OPERATION);
+ report_prefix_pop();
+
+ report_prefix_push("eqbs");
+ expect_pgm_int();
+ asm volatile(
+ " .insn rrf,0xb99c0000,0,0,0,0\n"
+ : : : "memory", "cc");
+ check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_OPERATION);
+ report_prefix_pop();
+
+ report_prefix_pop();
+}
Thomas
