On 2020-05-15 10:53, Janosch Frank wrote:
On 5/15/20 10:25 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2020 09:11:52 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2020-05-14 14:08, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2020 10:27:36 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2020-04-27 15:11, Janosch Frank wrote:
On 4/24/20 12:45 PM, Pierre Morel wrote:
This is NOT a routine to really enable the channel, no retry is done,
in case of error, a report is made.
Would we expect needing retries for the pong device?
Yes it can be that we need to retry some instructions if we want them to
succeed.
This is the case for example if we develop a driver for an operating system.
When working with firmware, sometime, things do not work at the first
time. Mostly due to races in silicium, firmware or hypervisor or between
them all.
Since our purpose is to detect such problems we do not retry
instructions but report the error.
If we detect such problem we may in the future enhance the tests.
I think I've seen retries needed on z/VM in the past; do you know if
that still happens?
I did not try the tests under z/VM, nor direct on an LPAR, only under
QEMU/KVM.
Under QEMU/KVM, I did not encounter any need for retry, 100% of the
enabled succeeded on first try.
Yep, QEMU/KVM should be fine. Do you plan to run this on anything else?
I'd like to have it compatible with z/VM / LPAR as well if it isn't too
much work. You never know when you need it and having tests for all
hypervisors has been quite a help in the past.
OK, then I can add some retries in prevision.
--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen
