On 9/22/21 11:12 AM, Claudio Imbrenda wrote: > On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 07:18:03 +0000 > Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> RC 0x100 is not an error but a notice that we could have gotten more >> data from the Ultravisor if we had asked for it. So let's tolerate >> them in our tests. >> >> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> s390x/uv-guest.c | 4 ++-- >> s390x/uv-host.c | 2 +- >> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/s390x/uv-guest.c b/s390x/uv-guest.c >> index f05ae4c3..e7446e03 100644 >> --- a/s390x/uv-guest.c >> +++ b/s390x/uv-guest.c >> @@ -70,8 +70,8 @@ static void test_query(void) >> report(cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_INV_LEN, "length"); >> >> uvcb.header.len = sizeof(uvcb); >> - cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb); >> - report(cc == 0 && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED, "successful query"); >> + uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb); >> + report(uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED || uvcb.header.rc >> == 0x100, "successful query"); > > if you want to be even more pedantic: > report(cc == 0 && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED || > cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == 0x100, ... Yeah I pondered about that but at the end I chose to drop the cc check > >> >> /* >> * These bits have been introduced with the very first >> diff --git a/s390x/uv-host.c b/s390x/uv-host.c >> index 28035707..66a11160 100644 >> --- a/s390x/uv-host.c >> +++ b/s390x/uv-host.c >> @@ -401,7 +401,7 @@ static void test_query(void) >> >> uvcb_qui.header.len = sizeof(uvcb_qui); >> uv_call(0, (uint64_t)&uvcb_qui); >> - report(uvcb_qui.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED, "successful query"); >> + report(uvcb_qui.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED || uvcb_qui.header.rc == 0x100, "successful query"); > > same here > >> >> for (i = 0; cmds[i].name; i++) >> report(uv_query_test_call(cmds[i].call_bit), "%s", cmds[i].name); >
