| Message ID | 20200331071456.3302-1-frankja@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [kvm-unit-tests,v3] s390x: Add stsi 3.2.2 tests | expand |
On 31.03.20 09:14, Janosch Frank wrote: > Subcode 3.2.2 is handled by KVM/QEMU and should therefore be tested > a bit more thorough. > > In this test we set a custom name and uuid through the QEMU command > line. Both parameters will be passed to the guest on a stsi subcode > 3.2.2 call and will then be checked. > > We also compare the configured cpu numbers against the smp reported > numbers and if the reserved + configured add up to the total number > reported. > > Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> > --- > > * Tabify on struct > * Moved prefix_push up a bit > * Replaced returns with goto out to pop prefix > > --- > s390x/stsi.c | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > s390x/unittests.cfg | 1 + > 2 files changed, 74 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/s390x/stsi.c b/s390x/stsi.c > index e9206bca137d2edb..17ad33eefb9c948a 100644 > --- a/s390x/stsi.c > +++ b/s390x/stsi.c > @@ -14,7 +14,28 @@ > #include <asm/page.h> > #include <asm/asm-offsets.h> > #include <asm/interrupt.h> > +#include <smp.h> > > +struct stsi_322 { > + uint8_t reserved[31]; > + uint8_t count; > + struct { > + uint8_t reserved2[4]; > + uint16_t total_cpus; > + uint16_t conf_cpus; > + uint16_t standby_cpus; > + uint16_t reserved_cpus; > + uint8_t name[8]; > + uint32_t caf; > + uint8_t cpi[16]; > + uint8_t reserved5[3]; > + uint8_t ext_name_encoding; > + uint32_t reserved3; > + uint8_t uuid[16]; > + } vm[8]; > + uint8_t reserved4[1504]; > + uint8_t ext_names[8][256]; Sorry, still no proper use of tabs. (can fixup if you agree)
On 3/31/20 10:24 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 31.03.20 09:14, Janosch Frank wrote: >> Subcode 3.2.2 is handled by KVM/QEMU and should therefore be tested >> a bit more thorough. >> >> In this test we set a custom name and uuid through the QEMU command >> line. Both parameters will be passed to the guest on a stsi subcode >> 3.2.2 call and will then be checked. >> >> We also compare the configured cpu numbers against the smp reported >> numbers and if the reserved + configured add up to the total number >> reported. >> >> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> >> --- >> >> * Tabify on struct >> * Moved prefix_push up a bit >> * Replaced returns with goto out to pop prefix >> >> --- >> s390x/stsi.c | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> s390x/unittests.cfg | 1 + >> 2 files changed, 74 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/s390x/stsi.c b/s390x/stsi.c >> index e9206bca137d2edb..17ad33eefb9c948a 100644 >> --- a/s390x/stsi.c >> +++ b/s390x/stsi.c >> @@ -14,7 +14,28 @@ >> #include <asm/page.h> >> #include <asm/asm-offsets.h> >> #include <asm/interrupt.h> >> +#include <smp.h> >> >> +struct stsi_322 { >> + uint8_t reserved[31]; >> + uint8_t count; >> + struct { >> + uint8_t reserved2[4]; >> + uint16_t total_cpus; >> + uint16_t conf_cpus; >> + uint16_t standby_cpus; >> + uint16_t reserved_cpus; >> + uint8_t name[8]; >> + uint32_t caf; >> + uint8_t cpi[16]; >> + uint8_t reserved5[3]; >> + uint8_t ext_name_encoding; >> + uint32_t reserved3; >> + uint8_t uuid[16]; >> + } vm[8]; >> + uint8_t reserved4[1504]; >> + uint8_t ext_names[8][256]; > > Sorry, still no proper use of tabs. (can fixup if you agree) > Sure, go ahead
On 31.03.20 10:29, Janosch Frank wrote: > On 3/31/20 10:24 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 31.03.20 09:14, Janosch Frank wrote: >>> Subcode 3.2.2 is handled by KVM/QEMU and should therefore be tested >>> a bit more thorough. >>> >>> In this test we set a custom name and uuid through the QEMU command >>> line. Both parameters will be passed to the guest on a stsi subcode >>> 3.2.2 call and will then be checked. >>> >>> We also compare the configured cpu numbers against the smp reported >>> numbers and if the reserved + configured add up to the total number >>> reported. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> >>> --- >>> >>> * Tabify on struct >>> * Moved prefix_push up a bit >>> * Replaced returns with goto out to pop prefix >>> >>> --- >>> s390x/stsi.c | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> s390x/unittests.cfg | 1 + >>> 2 files changed, 74 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/s390x/stsi.c b/s390x/stsi.c >>> index e9206bca137d2edb..17ad33eefb9c948a 100644 >>> --- a/s390x/stsi.c >>> +++ b/s390x/stsi.c >>> @@ -14,7 +14,28 @@ >>> #include <asm/page.h> >>> #include <asm/asm-offsets.h> >>> #include <asm/interrupt.h> >>> +#include <smp.h> >>> >>> +struct stsi_322 { >>> + uint8_t reserved[31]; >>> + uint8_t count; >>> + struct { >>> + uint8_t reserved2[4]; >>> + uint16_t total_cpus; >>> + uint16_t conf_cpus; >>> + uint16_t standby_cpus; >>> + uint16_t reserved_cpus; >>> + uint8_t name[8]; >>> + uint32_t caf; >>> + uint8_t cpi[16]; >>> + uint8_t reserved5[3]; >>> + uint8_t ext_name_encoding; >>> + uint32_t reserved3; >>> + uint8_t uuid[16]; >>> + } vm[8]; >>> + uint8_t reserved4[1504]; >>> + uint8_t ext_names[8][256]; >> >> Sorry, still no proper use of tabs. (can fixup if you agree) >> > Sure, go ahead > > Queued to https://github.com/davidhildenbrand/kvm-unit-tests.git s390x-next with the indentation fixed.
On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 03:14:56 -0400 Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > Subcode 3.2.2 is handled by KVM/QEMU and should therefore be tested > a bit more thorough. s/thorough/thoroughly/ ? > > In this test we set a custom name and uuid through the QEMU command > line. Both parameters will be passed to the guest on a stsi subcode > 3.2.2 call and will then be checked. > > We also compare the configured cpu numbers against the smp reported > numbers and if the reserved + configured add up to the total number > reported. > > Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> > --- > > * Tabify on struct > * Moved prefix_push up a bit > * Replaced returns with goto out to pop prefix > > --- > s390x/stsi.c | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > s390x/unittests.cfg | 1 + > 2 files changed, 74 insertions(+) > (...) > +static void test_3_2_2(void) > +{ > + int rc; > + /* EBCDIC for "kvm-unit" */ > + const uint8_t vm_name[] = { 0x92, 0xa5, 0x94, 0x60, 0xa4, 0x95, 0x89, > + 0xa3 }; > + const uint8_t uuid[] = { 0x0f, 0xb8, 0x4a, 0x86, 0x72, 0x7c, > + 0x11, 0xea, 0xbc, 0x55, 0x02, 0x42, 0xac, 0x13, > + 0x00, 0x03 }; > + /* EBCDIC for "KVM/" */ > + const uint8_t cpi_kvm[] = { 0xd2, 0xe5, 0xd4, 0x61 }; > + const char *vm_name_ext = "kvm-unit-test"; > + struct stsi_322 *data = (void *)pagebuf; > + > + report_prefix_push("3.2.2"); > + > + /* Is the function code available at all? */ > + if (stsi_get_fc(pagebuf) < 3) { > + report_skip("Running under lpar, no level 3 to test."); > + goto out; > + } > + > + rc = stsi(pagebuf, 3, 2, 2); > + report(!rc, "call"); > + > + /* For now we concentrate on KVM/QEMU */ > + if (memcmp(&data->vm[0].cpi, cpi_kvm, sizeof(cpi_kvm))) { > + report_skip("Not running under KVM/QEMU."); > + goto out; > + } > + > + report(!memcmp(data->vm[0].uuid, uuid, sizeof(uuid)), "uuid"); > + report(data->vm[0].conf_cpus == smp_query_num_cpus(), "cpu # configured"); > + report(data->vm[0].total_cpus == > + data->vm[0].reserved_cpus + data->vm[0].conf_cpus, > + "cpu # total == conf + reserved"); > + report(data->vm[0].standby_cpus == 0, "cpu # standby"); > + report(!memcmp(data->vm[0].name, vm_name, sizeof(data->vm[0].name)), > + "VM name == kvm-unit-test"); > + > + if (data->vm[0].ext_name_encoding != 2) { > + report_skip("Extended VM names are not UTF-8."); Do we expect this to be anything other than UTF-8? > + goto out; > + } > + report(!memcmp(data->ext_names[0], vm_name_ext, sizeof(vm_name_ext)), > + "ext VM name == kvm-unit-test"); > + > +out: > + report_prefix_pop(); > +} > + > int main(void) > { > report_prefix_push("stsi"); > test_priv(); > test_specs(); > test_fc(); > + test_3_2_2(); > return report_summary(); > } (...)
On 3/31/20 11:35 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 03:14:56 -0400 > Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > >> Subcode 3.2.2 is handled by KVM/QEMU and should therefore be tested >> a bit more thorough. > > s/thorough/thoroughly/ ? > >> >> In this test we set a custom name and uuid through the QEMU command >> line. Both parameters will be passed to the guest on a stsi subcode >> 3.2.2 call and will then be checked. >> >> We also compare the configured cpu numbers against the smp reported >> numbers and if the reserved + configured add up to the total number >> reported. >> >> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> >> --- >> >> * Tabify on struct >> * Moved prefix_push up a bit >> * Replaced returns with goto out to pop prefix >> >> --- >> s390x/stsi.c | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> s390x/unittests.cfg | 1 + >> 2 files changed, 74 insertions(+) >> > > (...) > >> +static void test_3_2_2(void) >> +{ >> + int rc; >> + /* EBCDIC for "kvm-unit" */ >> + const uint8_t vm_name[] = { 0x92, 0xa5, 0x94, 0x60, 0xa4, 0x95, 0x89, >> + 0xa3 }; >> + const uint8_t uuid[] = { 0x0f, 0xb8, 0x4a, 0x86, 0x72, 0x7c, >> + 0x11, 0xea, 0xbc, 0x55, 0x02, 0x42, 0xac, 0x13, >> + 0x00, 0x03 }; >> + /* EBCDIC for "KVM/" */ >> + const uint8_t cpi_kvm[] = { 0xd2, 0xe5, 0xd4, 0x61 }; >> + const char *vm_name_ext = "kvm-unit-test"; >> + struct stsi_322 *data = (void *)pagebuf; >> + >> + report_prefix_push("3.2.2"); >> + >> + /* Is the function code available at all? */ >> + if (stsi_get_fc(pagebuf) < 3) { >> + report_skip("Running under lpar, no level 3 to test."); >> + goto out; >> + } >> + >> + rc = stsi(pagebuf, 3, 2, 2); >> + report(!rc, "call"); >> + >> + /* For now we concentrate on KVM/QEMU */ >> + if (memcmp(&data->vm[0].cpi, cpi_kvm, sizeof(cpi_kvm))) { >> + report_skip("Not running under KVM/QEMU."); >> + goto out; >> + } >> + >> + report(!memcmp(data->vm[0].uuid, uuid, sizeof(uuid)), "uuid"); >> + report(data->vm[0].conf_cpus == smp_query_num_cpus(), "cpu # configured"); >> + report(data->vm[0].total_cpus == >> + data->vm[0].reserved_cpus + data->vm[0].conf_cpus, >> + "cpu # total == conf + reserved"); >> + report(data->vm[0].standby_cpus == 0, "cpu # standby"); >> + report(!memcmp(data->vm[0].name, vm_name, sizeof(data->vm[0].name)), >> + "VM name == kvm-unit-test"); >> + >> + if (data->vm[0].ext_name_encoding != 2) { >> + report_skip("Extended VM names are not UTF-8."); > > Do we expect this to be anything other than UTF-8? With the current QEMU no. When I find time to test this under z/VM (as a guest 2, no KVM) maybe. > >> + goto out; >> + } >> + report(!memcmp(data->ext_names[0], vm_name_ext, sizeof(vm_name_ext)), >> + "ext VM name == kvm-unit-test"); >> + >> +out: >> + report_prefix_pop(); >> +} >> + >> int main(void) >> { >> report_prefix_push("stsi"); >> test_priv(); >> test_specs(); >> test_fc(); >> + test_3_2_2(); >> return report_summary(); >> } > > (...) >
On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:46:53 +0200 Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > On 3/31/20 11:35 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 03:14:56 -0400 > > Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > > >> Subcode 3.2.2 is handled by KVM/QEMU and should therefore be tested > >> a bit more thorough. > > > > s/thorough/thoroughly/ ? > > > >> > >> In this test we set a custom name and uuid through the QEMU command > >> line. Both parameters will be passed to the guest on a stsi subcode > >> 3.2.2 call and will then be checked. > >> > >> We also compare the configured cpu numbers against the smp reported > >> numbers and if the reserved + configured add up to the total number > >> reported. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> > >> --- > >> > >> * Tabify on struct > >> * Moved prefix_push up a bit > >> * Replaced returns with goto out to pop prefix > >> > >> --- > >> s390x/stsi.c | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> s390x/unittests.cfg | 1 + > >> 2 files changed, 74 insertions(+) > >> > > > > (...) > > > >> +static void test_3_2_2(void) > >> +{ > >> + int rc; > >> + /* EBCDIC for "kvm-unit" */ > >> + const uint8_t vm_name[] = { 0x92, 0xa5, 0x94, 0x60, 0xa4, 0x95, 0x89, > >> + 0xa3 }; > >> + const uint8_t uuid[] = { 0x0f, 0xb8, 0x4a, 0x86, 0x72, 0x7c, > >> + 0x11, 0xea, 0xbc, 0x55, 0x02, 0x42, 0xac, 0x13, > >> + 0x00, 0x03 }; > >> + /* EBCDIC for "KVM/" */ > >> + const uint8_t cpi_kvm[] = { 0xd2, 0xe5, 0xd4, 0x61 }; > >> + const char *vm_name_ext = "kvm-unit-test"; > >> + struct stsi_322 *data = (void *)pagebuf; > >> + > >> + report_prefix_push("3.2.2"); > >> + > >> + /* Is the function code available at all? */ > >> + if (stsi_get_fc(pagebuf) < 3) { > >> + report_skip("Running under lpar, no level 3 to test."); > >> + goto out; > >> + } > >> + > >> + rc = stsi(pagebuf, 3, 2, 2); > >> + report(!rc, "call"); > >> + > >> + /* For now we concentrate on KVM/QEMU */ > >> + if (memcmp(&data->vm[0].cpi, cpi_kvm, sizeof(cpi_kvm))) { > >> + report_skip("Not running under KVM/QEMU."); > >> + goto out; > >> + } > >> + > >> + report(!memcmp(data->vm[0].uuid, uuid, sizeof(uuid)), "uuid"); > >> + report(data->vm[0].conf_cpus == smp_query_num_cpus(), "cpu # configured"); > >> + report(data->vm[0].total_cpus == > >> + data->vm[0].reserved_cpus + data->vm[0].conf_cpus, > >> + "cpu # total == conf + reserved"); > >> + report(data->vm[0].standby_cpus == 0, "cpu # standby"); > >> + report(!memcmp(data->vm[0].name, vm_name, sizeof(data->vm[0].name)), > >> + "VM name == kvm-unit-test"); > >> + > >> + if (data->vm[0].ext_name_encoding != 2) { > >> + report_skip("Extended VM names are not UTF-8."); > > > > Do we expect this to be anything other than UTF-8? > > With the current QEMU no. I don't really see a reason to change this in QEMU, though; and as you check already whether we're running under QEMU, maybe make this a failure? > When I find time to test this under z/VM (as a guest 2, no KVM) maybe. Would it make sense to check (different) expected values for z/VM and QEMU, then? > > > > >> + goto out; > >> + } > >> + report(!memcmp(data->ext_names[0], vm_name_ext, sizeof(vm_name_ext)), > >> + "ext VM name == kvm-unit-test"); > >> + > >> +out: > >> + report_prefix_pop(); > >> +} > >> + > >> int main(void) > >> { > >> report_prefix_push("stsi"); > >> test_priv(); > >> test_specs(); > >> test_fc(); > >> + test_3_2_2(); > >> return report_summary(); > >> } > > > > (...) > > > >
On 3/31/20 12:16 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:46:53 +0200 > Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > >> On 3/31/20 11:35 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>> On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 03:14:56 -0400 >>> Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Subcode 3.2.2 is handled by KVM/QEMU and should therefore be tested >>>> a bit more thorough. >>> >>> s/thorough/thoroughly/ ? >>> >>>> >>>> In this test we set a custom name and uuid through the QEMU command >>>> line. Both parameters will be passed to the guest on a stsi subcode >>>> 3.2.2 call and will then be checked. >>>> >>>> We also compare the configured cpu numbers against the smp reported >>>> numbers and if the reserved + configured add up to the total number >>>> reported. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> * Tabify on struct >>>> * Moved prefix_push up a bit >>>> * Replaced returns with goto out to pop prefix >>>> >>>> --- >>>> s390x/stsi.c | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> s390x/unittests.cfg | 1 + >>>> 2 files changed, 74 insertions(+) >>>> >>> >>> (...) >>> >>>> +static void test_3_2_2(void) >>>> +{ >>>> + int rc; >>>> + /* EBCDIC for "kvm-unit" */ >>>> + const uint8_t vm_name[] = { 0x92, 0xa5, 0x94, 0x60, 0xa4, 0x95, 0x89, >>>> + 0xa3 }; >>>> + const uint8_t uuid[] = { 0x0f, 0xb8, 0x4a, 0x86, 0x72, 0x7c, >>>> + 0x11, 0xea, 0xbc, 0x55, 0x02, 0x42, 0xac, 0x13, >>>> + 0x00, 0x03 }; >>>> + /* EBCDIC for "KVM/" */ >>>> + const uint8_t cpi_kvm[] = { 0xd2, 0xe5, 0xd4, 0x61 }; >>>> + const char *vm_name_ext = "kvm-unit-test"; >>>> + struct stsi_322 *data = (void *)pagebuf; >>>> + >>>> + report_prefix_push("3.2.2"); >>>> + >>>> + /* Is the function code available at all? */ >>>> + if (stsi_get_fc(pagebuf) < 3) { >>>> + report_skip("Running under lpar, no level 3 to test."); >>>> + goto out; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> + rc = stsi(pagebuf, 3, 2, 2); >>>> + report(!rc, "call"); >>>> + >>>> + /* For now we concentrate on KVM/QEMU */ >>>> + if (memcmp(&data->vm[0].cpi, cpi_kvm, sizeof(cpi_kvm))) { >>>> + report_skip("Not running under KVM/QEMU."); >>>> + goto out; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> + report(!memcmp(data->vm[0].uuid, uuid, sizeof(uuid)), "uuid"); >>>> + report(data->vm[0].conf_cpus == smp_query_num_cpus(), "cpu # configured"); >>>> + report(data->vm[0].total_cpus == >>>> + data->vm[0].reserved_cpus + data->vm[0].conf_cpus, >>>> + "cpu # total == conf + reserved"); >>>> + report(data->vm[0].standby_cpus == 0, "cpu # standby"); >>>> + report(!memcmp(data->vm[0].name, vm_name, sizeof(data->vm[0].name)), >>>> + "VM name == kvm-unit-test"); >>>> + >>>> + if (data->vm[0].ext_name_encoding != 2) { >>>> + report_skip("Extended VM names are not UTF-8."); >>> >>> Do we expect this to be anything other than UTF-8? >> >> With the current QEMU no. > > I don't really see a reason to change this in QEMU, though; and as you > check already whether we're running under QEMU, maybe make this a > failure? David has requested it and already queued the patch. If it bothers you, you can provide a fixpatch. :-) > >> When I find time to test this under z/VM (as a guest 2, no KVM) maybe. > > Would it make sense to check (different) expected values for z/VM and > QEMU, then? I'm not sure what z/VM reports here, so I can't answer that. But testing firmware, lpar and z/VM in addition to KVM has been proven increasingly useful over time. I'll add it to my low prio todo list. > >> >>> >>>> + goto out; >>>> + } >>>> + report(!memcmp(data->ext_names[0], vm_name_ext, sizeof(vm_name_ext)), >>>> + "ext VM name == kvm-unit-test"); >>>> + >>>> +out: >>>> + report_prefix_pop(); >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> int main(void) >>>> { >>>> report_prefix_push("stsi"); >>>> test_priv(); >>>> test_specs(); >>>> test_fc(); >>>> + test_3_2_2(); >>>> return report_summary(); >>>> } >>> >>> (...) >>> >> >> >
On 31.03.20 11:35, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 03:14:56 -0400 > Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > >> Subcode 3.2.2 is handled by KVM/QEMU and should therefore be tested >> a bit more thorough. > > s/thorough/thoroughly/ ? I fixed that up for now. [...] >> + if (data->vm[0].ext_name_encoding != 2) { >> + report_skip("Extended VM names are not UTF-8."); > > Do we expect this to be anything other than UTF-8? I'm not a fan of hard-coding things that can change to other valid values. No strong feelings though. I'll let Janosch decide :)
On 3/31/20 7:24 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 31.03.20 11:35, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 03:14:56 -0400 >> Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote: >> >>> Subcode 3.2.2 is handled by KVM/QEMU and should therefore be tested >>> a bit more thorough. >> >> s/thorough/thoroughly/ ? > > I fixed that up for now. Thanks > > [...] > >>> + if (data->vm[0].ext_name_encoding != 2) { >>> + report_skip("Extended VM names are not UTF-8."); >> >> Do we expect this to be anything other than UTF-8? > > I'm not a fan of hard-coding things that can change to other valid > values. No strong feelings though. I'll let Janosch decide :) > I'd like to keep it as is.
On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 09:20:49 +0200 Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > On 3/31/20 7:24 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > On 31.03.20 11:35, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >> On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 03:14:56 -0400 > >> Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Subcode 3.2.2 is handled by KVM/QEMU and should therefore be tested > >>> a bit more thorough. > >> > >> s/thorough/thoroughly/ ? > > > > I fixed that up for now. > > Thanks > > > > > [...] > > > >>> + if (data->vm[0].ext_name_encoding != 2) { > >>> + report_skip("Extended VM names are not UTF-8."); > >> > >> Do we expect this to be anything other than UTF-8? > > > > I'm not a fan of hard-coding things that can change to other valid > > values. No strong feelings though. I'll let Janosch decide :) > > > > I'd like to keep it as is. > > Fair enough. Feel free to add my Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
diff --git a/s390x/stsi.c b/s390x/stsi.c index e9206bca137d2edb..17ad33eefb9c948a 100644 --- a/s390x/stsi.c +++ b/s390x/stsi.c @@ -14,7 +14,28 @@ #include <asm/page.h> #include <asm/asm-offsets.h> #include <asm/interrupt.h> +#include <smp.h> +struct stsi_322 { + uint8_t reserved[31]; + uint8_t count; + struct { + uint8_t reserved2[4]; + uint16_t total_cpus; + uint16_t conf_cpus; + uint16_t standby_cpus; + uint16_t reserved_cpus; + uint8_t name[8]; + uint32_t caf; + uint8_t cpi[16]; + uint8_t reserved5[3]; + uint8_t ext_name_encoding; + uint32_t reserved3; + uint8_t uuid[16]; + } vm[8]; + uint8_t reserved4[1504]; + uint8_t ext_names[8][256]; +}; static uint8_t pagebuf[PAGE_SIZE * 2] __attribute__((aligned(PAGE_SIZE * 2))); static void test_specs(void) @@ -76,11 +97,63 @@ static void test_fc(void) report(stsi_get_fc(pagebuf) >= 2, "query fc >= 2"); } +static void test_3_2_2(void) +{ + int rc; + /* EBCDIC for "kvm-unit" */ + const uint8_t vm_name[] = { 0x92, 0xa5, 0x94, 0x60, 0xa4, 0x95, 0x89, + 0xa3 }; + const uint8_t uuid[] = { 0x0f, 0xb8, 0x4a, 0x86, 0x72, 0x7c, + 0x11, 0xea, 0xbc, 0x55, 0x02, 0x42, 0xac, 0x13, + 0x00, 0x03 }; + /* EBCDIC for "KVM/" */ + const uint8_t cpi_kvm[] = { 0xd2, 0xe5, 0xd4, 0x61 }; + const char *vm_name_ext = "kvm-unit-test"; + struct stsi_322 *data = (void *)pagebuf; + + report_prefix_push("3.2.2"); + + /* Is the function code available at all? */ + if (stsi_get_fc(pagebuf) < 3) { + report_skip("Running under lpar, no level 3 to test."); + goto out; + } + + rc = stsi(pagebuf, 3, 2, 2); + report(!rc, "call"); + + /* For now we concentrate on KVM/QEMU */ + if (memcmp(&data->vm[0].cpi, cpi_kvm, sizeof(cpi_kvm))) { + report_skip("Not running under KVM/QEMU."); + goto out; + } + + report(!memcmp(data->vm[0].uuid, uuid, sizeof(uuid)), "uuid"); + report(data->vm[0].conf_cpus == smp_query_num_cpus(), "cpu # configured"); + report(data->vm[0].total_cpus == + data->vm[0].reserved_cpus + data->vm[0].conf_cpus, + "cpu # total == conf + reserved"); + report(data->vm[0].standby_cpus == 0, "cpu # standby"); + report(!memcmp(data->vm[0].name, vm_name, sizeof(data->vm[0].name)), + "VM name == kvm-unit-test"); + + if (data->vm[0].ext_name_encoding != 2) { + report_skip("Extended VM names are not UTF-8."); + goto out; + } + report(!memcmp(data->ext_names[0], vm_name_ext, sizeof(vm_name_ext)), + "ext VM name == kvm-unit-test"); + +out: + report_prefix_pop(); +} + int main(void) { report_prefix_push("stsi"); test_priv(); test_specs(); test_fc(); + test_3_2_2(); return report_summary(); } diff --git a/s390x/unittests.cfg b/s390x/unittests.cfg index 12d46c5b402328bb..06e556836c102a14 100644 --- a/s390x/unittests.cfg +++ b/s390x/unittests.cfg @@ -71,6 +71,7 @@ extra_params=-device diag288,id=watchdog0 --watchdog-action inject-nmi [stsi] file = stsi.elf +extra_params=-name kvm-unit-test --uuid 0fb84a86-727c-11ea-bc55-0242ac130003 -smp 1,maxcpus=8 [smp] file = smp.elf
Subcode 3.2.2 is handled by KVM/QEMU and should therefore be tested a bit more thorough. In this test we set a custom name and uuid through the QEMU command line. Both parameters will be passed to the guest on a stsi subcode 3.2.2 call and will then be checked. We also compare the configured cpu numbers against the smp reported numbers and if the reserved + configured add up to the total number reported. Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> --- * Tabify on struct * Moved prefix_push up a bit * Replaced returns with goto out to pop prefix --- s390x/stsi.c | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ s390x/unittests.cfg | 1 + 2 files changed, 74 insertions(+)