On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 18:01:32 +0100 Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 14/01/2020 16.30, Janosch Frank wrote: > > All CRs are set to 0 and CRs 0 and 14 are set to pre-defined values, > > so we also need to test 1-13 and 15 for 0. > > > > And while we're at it, let's also set some values to cr 1, 7 and 13, so > > we can actually be sure that they will be zeroed. > > > > Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > s390x/smp.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > @@ -219,6 +237,7 @@ static void test_reset(void) > > > > sigp_retry(1, SIGP_CPU_RESET, 0, NULL); > > report(smp_cpu_stopped(1), "cpu stopped"); > > + smp_cpu_destroy(1); > > Shouldn't that rather be part of patch 2/4 ? I'd maybe also move this to > the main() function instead since you've setup the cpu there...? Also is > it still ok to use smp_cpu_start() in test_reset_initial() after you've > destroyed the CPU here in test_reset()? Isn't it simply wrong? I thought the pattern was supposed to be - setup cpu - do some tests, including stopping/restarting/etc. - destroy cpu [currently missing] > > > report_prefix_pop(); > > } > > Thomas
