On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 08:52 +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 17/11/2022 23.17, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote: > > This allows checking if the necessary requirements for a test case are > > met via an arbitrary expression. In particular, it is easy to check if > > certain bits are set in the memop extension capability. > > > > Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 132 +++++++++++----------- > > 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c > > index 286185a59238..10f34c629cac 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c > > @@ -690,87 +690,87 @@ static void test_errors(void) > > kvm_vm_free(t.kvm_vm); > > } > > [...] > > > > + } testlist[] = { > > + { > > + .name = "simple copy", > > + .test = test_copy, > > + .requirements_met = true, > > + }, > > + { > > + .name = "generic error checks", > > + .test = test_errors, > > + .requirements_met = true, > > + }, > > + { > > + .name = "copy with storage keys", > > + .test = test_copy_key, > > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, > > + }, > > + { > > + .name = "copy with key storage protection override", > > + .test = test_copy_key_storage_prot_override, > > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, > > + }, > > + { > > + .name = "copy with key fetch protection", > > + .test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot, > > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, > > + }, > > + { > > + .name = "copy with key fetch protection override", > > + .test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot_override, > > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, > > + }, > > + { > > + .name = "error checks with key", > > + .test = test_errors_key, > > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, > > + }, > > + { > > + .name = "termination", > > + .test = test_termination, > > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, > > + }, > > + { > > + .name = "error checks with key storage protection override", > > + .test = test_errors_key_storage_prot_override, > > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, > > + }, > > + { > > + .name = "error checks without key fetch prot override", > > + .test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_not_enabled, > > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, > > + }, > > + { > > + .name = "error checks with key fetch prot override", > > + .test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_enabled, > > + .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0, > > I wonder whether it would rather make sense to check for "extension_cap & 1" > instead of "extension_cap > 0" ? The cap should always have been a bitmap, but unfortunately I didn't initially define it as one, the storage key extension must be supported if the cap > 0. So the test reflects that and may catch an error in the future. > > Anyway: > Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx> > Thanks!