On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 03:50 PM +0200, Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 02:46:36PM +0200, Marc Hartmayer wrote:
>> Add support for Protected Virtual Machine (PVM) tests. For starting a
>> PVM guest we must be able to generate a PVM image by using the
>> `genprotimg` tool from the s390-tools collection. This requires the
>> ability to pass a machine-specific host-key document, so the option
>> `--host-key-document` is added to the configure script.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Hartmayer <mhartmay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
[…snip…]
> +
>> "$cmd" "$testname" "$groups" "$smp" "$kernel" "$opts" "$arch" "$check" "$accel" "$timeout"
>> + if [ "${pv_support}" == 1 ]; then
>> + pv_cmd "$cmd" "$testname" "$groups" "$smp" "$kernel" "$opts" "$arch" "$check" "$accel" "$timeout"
>> + fi
>> exec {fd}<&-
>> }
>> --
>> 2.17.0
>>
>
> I don't think making the changes to scripts/common.bash will work for
> standalone tests. Why not do this stuff in s390x/run instead?
Okay, I’ve looked into the code, and the reason for this approach is
that I want to treat the PVM and the “normal” test case as two separate
test cases, but using the same test configuration. I don’t see how I can
achieve this by editing s390x/run and for the standalone case.
Maybe this approach is already broken and I should simply add the PVM
testcases as extra test cases to the unittest.cfg - but this would
result in duplicated code in the configuration file.
> Also,
> do you need the pv_support[ed] parameter? You could just do a
> [ -f "${kernel%.elf}.pv.img" ] to decide if you should run again
> with PV, right?
>
> Thanks,
> drew
>
--
Kind regards / Beste Grüße
Marc Hartmayer
IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Gregor Pillen
Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294
