On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 01:43:06PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 20/05/19 13:30, Thomas Huth wrote: > >> No objections at all, though it would be like to have ucall plumbed in > >> from the beginning. > > I'm still looking at the ucall interface ... what I don't quite get yet > > is the question why the ucall_type there is selectable during runtime? > > > > Are there plans to have test that could either use UCALL_PIO or > > UCALL_MMIO? If not, what about moving ucall_init() and ucall() to > > architecture specific code in tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/ > > and tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64 instead, and to remove the > > ucall_type stuff again (so that x86 is hard-wired to PIO and aarch64 > > is hard-wired to MMIO)? ... then I could add a DIAG-based ucall > > on s390x more easily, I think. > > Yes, that would work. I think Andrew wanted the flexibility to use MMIO > on x86, but it's not really necessary to have it. If the flexibility isn't necessary, then I agree that it'll be nicer to put the ucall_init() in arch setup code, avoiding the need to remember it in each unit test. Thanks, drew
