Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: s390: selftests: Test vm and vcpu memop with keys

[Shuah Khan]

On 2/18/22 5:14 AM, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> On 2/17/22 18:54, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > On 2/17/22 7:53 AM, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> > > Test storage key checking for both vm and vcpu MEM_OP ioctls.
> > > Test both error and non error conditions.
> >
> > This patch seems to combine restructuring the code and new code.
> > e,g test_errors() was added in the last patch, only to be redone
> > in this patch with test_errors split into test_common_errors()
> >
> > Doing restructure in a separate patch and then adding new code
> > makes it easier to review and also keep them simpler patches.
> >
> > Please split the code in these two patches to just do restructure
> > and then add new code.
> >
> > I also would like to have good reasons to change existing code and
> > make them into macros.
> >   
> > > Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >    tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 342 +++++++++++++++++++++-
> > >    1 file changed, 328 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> > > index 4510418d73e6..bc12a9238967 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> > > @@ -201,6 +201,8 @@ static int err_memop_ioctl(struct test_vcpu vcpu, struct kvm_s390_mem_op *ksmo)
> > >    #define PAGE_SHIFT 12
> > >    #define PAGE_SIZE (1ULL << PAGE_SHIFT)
> > >    #define PAGE_MASK (~(PAGE_SIZE - 1))
> > > +#define CR0_FETCH_PROTECTION_OVERRIDE    (1UL << (63 - 38))
> > > +#define CR0_STORAGE_PROTECTION_OVERRIDE    (1UL << (63 - 39))
> > >      #define ASSERT_MEM_EQ(p1, p2, size) \
> > >        TEST_ASSERT(!memcmp(p1, p2, size), "Memory contents do not match!")
> > > @@ -235,6 +237,11 @@ static struct test_default test_default_init(void *guest_code)
> > >        return t;
> > >    }
> > >    +static vm_vaddr_t test_vaddr_alloc(struct test_vcpu vm, size_t size, vm_vaddr_t vaddr_min)
> > > +{
> > > +    return vm_vaddr_alloc(vm.vm, size, vaddr_min);
> > > +}
> > > +
> >
> > What is the value of adding a new routine that simply calls another?
>
> I just found the vm.vm confusing/ugly and wanted to hide it,
> I'm not married to that idea, tho.
>
> > Do you see this routine changing in the future to do more?
>
> No.
> >


Let's drop it the new routine then.

thanks,
-- Shuah