Re: [PATCH v3 5/9] KVM: s390: selftest: memop: Move testlist into main

From: Thomas Huth
Date: Tue Nov 22 2022 - 02:53:57 EST


On 17/11/2022 23.17, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
This allows checking if the necessary requirements for a test case are
met via an arbitrary expression. In particular, it is easy to check if
certain bits are set in the memop extension capability.

Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 132 +++++++++++-----------
1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
index 286185a59238..10f34c629cac 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
@@ -690,87 +690,87 @@ static void test_errors(void)
kvm_vm_free(t.kvm_vm);
}
-struct testdef {
- const char *name;
- void (*test)(void);
- int extension;
-} testlist[] = {
- {
- .name = "simple copy",
- .test = test_copy,
- },
- {
- .name = "generic error checks",
- .test = test_errors,
- },
- {
- .name = "copy with storage keys",
- .test = test_copy_key,
- .extension = 1,
- },
- {
- .name = "copy with key storage protection override",
- .test = test_copy_key_storage_prot_override,
- .extension = 1,
- },
- {
- .name = "copy with key fetch protection",
- .test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot,
- .extension = 1,
- },
- {
- .name = "copy with key fetch protection override",
- .test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot_override,
- .extension = 1,
- },
- {
- .name = "error checks with key",
- .test = test_errors_key,
- .extension = 1,
- },
- {
- .name = "termination",
- .test = test_termination,
- .extension = 1,
- },
- {
- .name = "error checks with key storage protection override",
- .test = test_errors_key_storage_prot_override,
- .extension = 1,
- },
- {
- .name = "error checks without key fetch prot override",
- .test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_not_enabled,
- .extension = 1,
- },
- {
- .name = "error checks with key fetch prot override",
- .test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_enabled,
- .extension = 1,
- },
-};
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int extension_cap, idx;
+ setbuf(stdout, NULL); /* Tell stdout not to buffer its content */
TEST_REQUIRE(kvm_has_cap(KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP));
+ extension_cap = kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP_EXTENSION);
- setbuf(stdout, NULL); /* Tell stdout not to buffer its content */
+ struct testdef {
+ const char *name;
+ void (*test)(void);
+ bool requirements_met;
+ } testlist[] = {
+ {
+ .name = "simple copy",
+ .test = test_copy,
+ .requirements_met = true,
+ },
+ {
+ .name = "generic error checks",
+ .test = test_errors,
+ .requirements_met = true,
+ },
+ {
+ .name = "copy with storage keys",
+ .test = test_copy_key,
+ .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,
+ },
+ {
+ .name = "copy with key storage protection override",
+ .test = test_copy_key_storage_prot_override,
+ .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,
+ },
+ {
+ .name = "copy with key fetch protection",
+ .test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot,
+ .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,
+ },
+ {
+ .name = "copy with key fetch protection override",
+ .test = test_copy_key_fetch_prot_override,
+ .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,
+ },
+ {
+ .name = "error checks with key",
+ .test = test_errors_key,
+ .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,
+ },
+ {
+ .name = "termination",
+ .test = test_termination,
+ .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,
+ },
+ {
+ .name = "error checks with key storage protection override",
+ .test = test_errors_key_storage_prot_override,
+ .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,
+ },
+ {
+ .name = "error checks without key fetch prot override",
+ .test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_not_enabled,
+ .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,
+ },
+ {
+ .name = "error checks with key fetch prot override",
+ .test = test_errors_key_fetch_prot_override_enabled,
+ .requirements_met = extension_cap > 0,

I wonder whether it would rather make sense to check for "extension_cap & 1" instead of "extension_cap > 0" ?

Anyway:
Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx>