Re: [PATCH v9 5/6] selftests: KVM: s390x: Add reset tests

[Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 30/01/2020 13.34, Janosch Frank wrote:
> Test if the registers end up having the correct values after a normal,
> initial and clear reset.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile       |   1 +
>  tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/resets.c | 157 +++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 158 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/resets.c
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
> index 3138a916574a..fe1ea294730c 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
> @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += kvm_create_max_vcpus
>  
>  TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x = s390x/memop
>  TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += s390x/sync_regs_test
> +TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += s390x/resets
>  TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += dirty_log_test
>  TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += kvm_create_max_vcpus
>  
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/resets.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/resets.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..4e173517f909
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/resets.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
> +/*
> + * Test for s390x CPU resets
> + *
> + * Copyright (C) 2020, IBM
> + */
> +
> +#include <stdio.h>
> +#include <stdlib.h>
> +#include <string.h>
> +#include <sys/ioctl.h>
> +
> +#include "test_util.h"
> +#include "kvm_util.h"
> +
> +#define VCPU_ID 3
> +
> +struct kvm_vm *vm;
> +struct kvm_run *run;
> +struct kvm_sync_regs *regs;
> +static uint64_t regs_null[16];
> +
> +static uint64_t crs[16] = { 0x40000ULL,
> +			    0x42000ULL,
> +			    0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
> +			    0x43000ULL,
> +			    0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
> +			    0x44000ULL,
> +			    0, 0
> +};
> +
> +static void guest_code_initial(void)
> +{
> +	/* Round toward 0 */
> +	uint32_t fpc = 0x11;
> +
> +	/* Dirty registers */
> +	asm volatile (
> +		"	lctlg	0,15,%0\n"
> +		"	sfpc	%1\n"
> +		: : "Q" (crs), "d" (fpc));
> +	GUEST_SYNC(0);
> +}
> +
> +static void test_one_reg(uint64_t id, uint64_t value)
> +{
> +	struct kvm_one_reg reg;
> +	uint64_t eval_reg;
> +
> +	reg.addr = (uintptr_t)&eval_reg;
> +	reg.id = id;
> +	vcpu_get_reg(vm, VCPU_ID, &reg);
> +	TEST_ASSERT(eval_reg == value, "value == %s", value);
> +}
> +
> +static void assert_clear(void)
> +{
> +	struct kvm_sregs sregs;
> +	struct kvm_regs regs;
> +	struct kvm_fpu fpu;
> +
> +	vcpu_regs_get(vm, VCPU_ID, &regs);
> +	TEST_ASSERT(!memcmp(&regs.gprs, regs_null, sizeof(regs.gprs)), "grs == 0");
> +
> +	vcpu_sregs_get(vm, VCPU_ID, &sregs);
> +	TEST_ASSERT(!memcmp(&sregs.acrs, regs_null, sizeof(sregs.acrs)), "acrs == 0");
> +
> +	vcpu_fpu_get(vm, VCPU_ID, &fpu);
> +	TEST_ASSERT(!memcmp(&fpu.fprs, regs_null, sizeof(fpu.fprs)), "fprs == 0");
> +}
> +
> +static void assert_initial(void)
> +{
> +	struct kvm_sregs sregs;
> +	struct kvm_fpu fpu;
> +
> +	vcpu_sregs_get(vm, VCPU_ID, &sregs);
> +	TEST_ASSERT(sregs.crs[0] == 0xE0UL, "cr0 == 0xE0");
> +	TEST_ASSERT(sregs.crs[14] == 0xC2000000UL, "cr14 == 0xC2000000");
> +	TEST_ASSERT(!memcmp(&sregs.crs[1], regs_null, sizeof(sregs.crs[1]) * 12),
> +		    "cr1-13 == 0");
> +	TEST_ASSERT(sregs.crs[15] == 0, "cr15 == 0");
> +
> +	vcpu_fpu_get(vm, VCPU_ID, &fpu);
> +	TEST_ASSERT(!fpu.fpc, "fpc == 0");
> +
> +	test_one_reg(KVM_REG_S390_GBEA, 1);
> +	test_one_reg(KVM_REG_S390_PP, 0);
> +	test_one_reg(KVM_REG_S390_TODPR, 0);
> +	test_one_reg(KVM_REG_S390_CPU_TIMER, 0);
> +	test_one_reg(KVM_REG_S390_CLOCK_COMP, 0);
> +}
> +
> +static void assert_normal(void)
> +{
> +	test_one_reg(KVM_REG_S390_PFTOKEN, KVM_S390_PFAULT_TOKEN_INVALID);
> +}
> +
> +static void test_normal(void)
> +{
> +	printf("Testing notmal reset\n");

s/notmal/normal/

With the typo fixed:

Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx>