On 2/3/22 17:31, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 09:19:34 +0000
Steffen Eiden <seiden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Removing some tests which are done at other points in the code
implicitly.
[...]
diff --git a/s390x/uv-guest.c b/s390x/uv-guest.c
index 44ad2154..97ae4687 100644
--- a/s390x/uv-guest.c
+++ b/s390x/uv-guest.c
@@ -69,23 +69,15 @@ static void test_query(void)
cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb);
report(cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_INV_LEN, "length");
- uvcb.header.len = sizeof(uvcb);
- cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb);
- report((!cc && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED) ||
- (cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == 0x100),
- "successful query");
-
ok fair enough, an unsuccessful query would have caused an assert in
the setup code, but I don't think it hurts, and I think it would be
nice to have for completeness.
Janosch explicitly asked me to remove this while I am editing uv_guest.
[...]
also, what happens if only one of the two bits is set? (which is very
wrong). In that scenario, I would like this test to fail, not skip.
this means that we can't rely on uv_os_is_guest to decide whether to
skip this test.
That is true and a test if both bits are present xor none would be a
great addition. However, if just one bit is set, uv_os_is_guest would
return false and this part will never be reached anyway.
I can add a test before the uv_os_is_guest fence to verify that both
xor none SHARED flags are set.
*/
- report(test_bit_inv(BIT_UVC_CMD_QUI, &uvcb.inst_calls_list[0]),
- "query indicated");
- report(test_bit_inv(BIT_UVC_CMD_SET_SHARED_ACCESS, &uvcb.inst_calls_list[0]),
- "share indicated");
- report(test_bit_inv(BIT_UVC_CMD_REMOVE_SHARED_ACCESS, &uvcb.inst_calls_list[0]),
- "unshare indicated");
+ report(uv_query_test_call(BIT_UVC_CMD_QUI), "query indicated");
report_prefix_pop();
}
Steffen
