On 9/23/19 10:10 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 20/09/2019 10.10, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 20.09.19 09:50, Janosch Frank wrote:
>>> Alignment and selectors test order is not specified and so, if you
>>> have an unaligned address and invalid selectors it's up to the
>>> hypervisor to decide which error is presented.
>>>
>>> Let's add valid selectors to the unaligned test and add selector
>>> tests.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> s390x/stsi.c | 4 +++-
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/s390x/stsi.c b/s390x/stsi.c
>>> index 7232cb0..c5bd0a2 100644
>>> --- a/s390x/stsi.c
>>> +++ b/s390x/stsi.c
>>> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ static void test_specs(void)
>>>
>>> report_prefix_push("unaligned");
>>> expect_pgm_int();
>>> - stsi(pagebuf + 42, 1, 0, 0);
>>> + stsi(pagebuf + 42, 1, 1, 1);
>>> check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIFICATION);
>>> report_prefix_pop();
>>>
>>> @@ -71,6 +71,8 @@ static inline unsigned long stsi_get_fc(void *addr)
>>> static void test_fc(void)
>>> {
>>> report("invalid fc", stsi(pagebuf, 7, 0, 0) == 3);
>
> While you're at it, wouldn't it be better to use "(pagebuf, 7, 1, 1)" here?
The selectors depend on the command, so they need to be checked after
the command. I don't think it would make much sense to change the zeroes
here.
>
> Thomas
>
>
>>> + report("invalid selector 1", stsi(pagebuf, 1, 0, 1) == 3);
>>> + report("invalid selector 2", stsi(pagebuf, 1, 1, 0) == 3);
>>> report("query fc >= 2", stsi_get_fc(pagebuf) >= 2);
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
