On 4/19/22 19:40, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 14/04/2022 14.48, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
>> On 4/14/22 12:53, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> The memop test currently does not have any output (unless one of the
>>> TEST_ASSERT statement fails), so it's hard to say for a user whether
>>> a certain new sub-test has been included in the binary or not. Let's
>>> make this a little bit more user-friendly and include some TAP output
>>> via the kselftests.h interface.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 90 ++++++++++++++++++-----
>>> 1 file changed, 73 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>>> index b04c2c1b3c30..a2783d9afcac 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>>> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
>>> #include "test_util.h"
>>> #include "kvm_util.h"
>>> +#include "kselftest.h"
>>> enum mop_target {
>>> LOGICAL,
>>> @@ -648,33 +649,88 @@ static void test_errors(void)
>>> kvm_vm_free(t.kvm_vm);
>>> }
>>> +struct testdef {
>>> + const char *name;
>>> + void (*test)(void);
>>> + bool needs_extension;
>>
>> Please make this numeric. You could also rename it to required_extension or similar.
> [...]
>>> +
>>> + for (idx = 0; idx < ARRAY_SIZE(testlist); idx++) {
>>> + if (!testlist[idx].needs_extension || extension_cap) {
>>
>> Then check here that extension_cap >= the required extension.
>> This way the test can easily be adapted in case of future extensions.
>
> Not sure whether a ">=" will really be safe, since a future extension does not necessarily assert that previous extensions are available at the same time.
Hmm, I intend for that to hold. In any case, for the existing extension we have committed to it, e.g.
the documentation says:
Absolute accesses are permitted for the VM ioctl if KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP_EXTENSION
is > 0.
So, if we introduce an extension and allow for it to be removed with a higher extension number,
when we add testing support for that extension we'd have to change the capability check,
but the existing test case would not break.
I guess the most flexible way would be to initialize the array in the middle of main, then
you could do .skip = !extension_cap and in the future whatever expression makes sense, but
it's kinda ugly and should not be necessary anyway.
>
> But I can still turn the bool into a numeric to make it a little bit more flexible for future use.
>
> Thomas
>
