Hi Marc, On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 5:27 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [Adding Eric to the list, since he worked a lot on the save/restore code] > > On Wed, 06 Nov 2024 08:30:35 +0000, > Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Add a selftest to verify the correctness of the VGIC ITS mappings after > > the save/restore operations (KVM_DEV_ARM_ITS_SAVE_TABLES / > > KVM_DEV_ARM_ITS_RESTORE_TABLES). > > What are you checking? The saved data? The restored data? > > > Also calculate the time spending on save/restore operations. > > Is that really relevant? I don't think performance matters at this > stage, if we can't even have reliable data. Right. It doesn't matter. Will remove this line from the message. > > > This test uses some corner cases to capture the save/restore bugs. It > > Which corner cases? Will add details. > > > will be used to verify the future incoming changes for the VGIC ITS > > tables save/restore. > > > > To capture the "Invalid argument (-22)" error, run the test without any > > option. To capture the wrong/lost mappings, run the test with '-s' > > option. > > Since the VGIC ITS save/restore bug is caused by orphaned DTE/ITE > > entries, if we run the test with '-c' option whih clears the tables > > before the save operation, the test will complete successfully. > > I'm sorry, but this description is meaningless, as you need to know > what is the bug that has been fixed. Will add bug description here too as in the cover letter. > > Also, how is someone supposed to run this thing? Without options? With > options? With any combination of options? > > From what I understand, the various options are designed to help > debugging a broken vgic implementation. So please document what the > options do rather than an bug that is supposed to be already fixed. Will do. > > Thanks, > > M. > > -- > Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. Thanks, Jing
