On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 4:37 PM Atish Patra <atishp@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2/20/24 18:13, Haibo Xu wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 7:03 AM Atish Patra <atishp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 1:48 AM Haibo Xu <haibo1.xu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Move vcpu_has_ext to the processor.c and rename it to __vcpu_has_ext
> >>> so that other test cases can use it for vCPU extension check.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Haibo Xu <haibo1.xu@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/riscv/processor.h | 2 ++
> >>> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/riscv/processor.c | 10 ++++++++++
> >>> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/riscv/get-reg-list.c | 11 +----------
> >>> 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/riscv/processor.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/riscv/processor.h
> >>> index b68b1b731a34..bd27e1c67579 100644
> >>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/riscv/processor.h
> >>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/riscv/processor.h
> >>> @@ -42,6 +42,8 @@ static inline uint64_t __kvm_reg_id(uint64_t type, uint64_t idx,
> >>> #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_REG(idx) __kvm_reg_id(KVM_REG_RISCV_ISA_EXT, \
> >>> idx, KVM_REG_SIZE_ULONG)
> >>>
> >>> +bool __vcpu_has_ext(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int ext);
> >>> +
> >>> struct ex_regs {
> >>> unsigned long ra;
> >>> unsigned long sp;
> >>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/riscv/processor.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/riscv/processor.c
> >>> index 39a1e9902dec..dad73ce18164 100644
> >>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/riscv/processor.c
> >>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/riscv/processor.c
> >>> @@ -15,6 +15,16 @@
> >>>
> >>> static vm_vaddr_t exception_handlers;
> >>>
> >>> +bool __vcpu_has_ext(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int ext)
> >>> +{
> >>> + unsigned long value = 0;
> >>> + int ret;
> >>> +
> >>> + ret = __vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, RISCV_ISA_EXT_REG(ext), &value);
> >>> +
> >>> + return !ret && !!value;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>
> >> Not sure what was the base patch on which this was rebased. The actual
> >> commit in the queue branch looks different.
> >>
> >
> > This patch set was based on 6.7-rc8.
> >
> >> https://github.com/kvm-riscv/linux/commit/5563517cc2012e3326411b360c9924d3f2706c8d
> >>
> >> Both seem to have the same bug though the tests fail now and require
> >> the following fix.
> >> The ext id should be uint64_t and we need to pass ext directly so that
> >> SBI extension tests can also pass.
> >>
> >
> > It's weird that 6.7-rc8 has already included Andrew's change on the ISA ext reg,
> > but this patch was not generated against his change.
> >
> > commit bdf6aa328f137e184b0fce607fd585354c3742f1
> > Author: Andrew Jones <ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Wed Dec 13 18:09:58 2023 +0100
> >
> > RISC-V: KVM: selftests: Treat SBI ext regs like ISA ext regs
> >
> > Anyway, your changes were right. Please go ahead to include them when merging.
> >
>
> I am not sure what happened. Probably, a merge conflict issue.
>
> I just realized I forgot to copy paste another fix in arch timer
>
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/riscv/arch_timer.c
> @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ struct kvm_vm *test_vm_create(void)
> int nr_vcpus = test_args.nr_vcpus;
>
> vm = vm_create_with_vcpus(nr_vcpus, guest_code, vcpus);
> - __TEST_REQUIRE(__vcpu_has_ext(vcpus[0], KVM_RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC),
> + __TEST_REQUIRE(__vcpu_has_ext(vcpus[0],
> RISCV_ISA_EXT_REG(KVM_RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC)),
>
Right Fix!
Please let me know if I need to rebase this patch series on your tree
and resent it.
Thanks,
Haibo
