| Message ID | f44c3aa46971d524319c6340f9ce1b00c0182fd2.1688010022.git.haibo1.xu@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | RISCV: Add KVM_GET_REG_LIST API | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| conchuod/cover_letter | success | Series has a cover letter |
| conchuod/tree_selection | success | Guessed tree name to be for-next at HEAD 488833ccdcac |
| conchuod/fixes_present | success | Fixes tag not required for -next series |
| conchuod/maintainers_pattern | success | MAINTAINERS pattern errors before the patch: 6 and now 6 |
| conchuod/verify_signedoff | success | Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer |
| conchuod/kdoc | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| conchuod/build_rv64_clang_allmodconfig | success | Errors and warnings before: 8 this patch: 8 |
| conchuod/module_param | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| conchuod/build_rv64_gcc_allmodconfig | success | Errors and warnings before: 8 this patch: 8 |
| conchuod/build_rv32_defconfig | success | Build OK |
| conchuod/dtb_warn_rv64 | success | Errors and warnings before: 20 this patch: 20 |
| conchuod/header_inline | success | No static functions without inline keyword in header files |
| conchuod/checkpatch | fail | ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses |
| conchuod/build_rv64_nommu_k210_defconfig | success | Build OK |
| conchuod/verify_fixes | success | No Fixes tag |
| conchuod/build_rv64_nommu_virt_defconfig | success | Build OK |
On Sat, Jul 01, 2023 at 09:42:58PM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote: > Only do the get/set tests on present and blessed registers > since we don't know the capabilities of any new ones. > > Suggested-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> > Signed-off-by: Haibo Xu <haibo1.xu@intel.com> > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/get-reg-list.c | 29 ++++++++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/get-reg-list.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/get-reg-list.c > index c61090806007..74fb6f6fdd09 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/get-reg-list.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/get-reg-list.c > @@ -49,6 +49,10 @@ extern int vcpu_configs_n; > for_each_reg_filtered(i) \ > if (!find_reg(blessed_reg, blessed_n, reg_list->reg[i])) > > +#define for_each_present_blessed_reg(i) \ > + for ((i) = 0; (i) < blessed_n; ++(i)) \ > + if (find_reg(reg_list->reg, reg_list->n, blessed_reg[i])) I just realized this is backwards. We need 'i' to index reg_list->reg in the body of the loop. That means we need to write this as #define for_each_present_blessed_reg(i) \ for_each_reg(i) \ if (find_reg(blessed_reg, blessed_n, reg_list->reg[i])) (Which, in hindsight, makes sense since we're replacing a for_each_reg() loop.) Thanks, drew
On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 4:18 PM Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 01, 2023 at 09:42:58PM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote: > > Only do the get/set tests on present and blessed registers > > since we don't know the capabilities of any new ones. > > > > Suggested-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> > > Signed-off-by: Haibo Xu <haibo1.xu@intel.com> > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> > > --- > > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/get-reg-list.c | 29 ++++++++++++++-------- > > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/get-reg-list.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/get-reg-list.c > > index c61090806007..74fb6f6fdd09 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/get-reg-list.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/get-reg-list.c > > @@ -49,6 +49,10 @@ extern int vcpu_configs_n; > > for_each_reg_filtered(i) \ > > if (!find_reg(blessed_reg, blessed_n, reg_list->reg[i])) > > > > +#define for_each_present_blessed_reg(i) \ > > + for ((i) = 0; (i) < blessed_n; ++(i)) \ > > + if (find_reg(reg_list->reg, reg_list->n, blessed_reg[i])) > > I just realized this is backwards. We need 'i' to index reg_list->reg in > the body of the loop. That means we need to write this as > > #define for_each_present_blessed_reg(i) \ > for_each_reg(i) \ > if (find_reg(blessed_reg, blessed_n, reg_list->reg[i])) > > (Which, in hindsight, makes sense since we're replacing a for_each_reg() > loop.) > Sure, I will update it in v6. Thanks! > Thanks, > drew
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/get-reg-list.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/get-reg-list.c index c61090806007..74fb6f6fdd09 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/get-reg-list.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/get-reg-list.c @@ -49,6 +49,10 @@ extern int vcpu_configs_n; for_each_reg_filtered(i) \ if (!find_reg(blessed_reg, blessed_n, reg_list->reg[i])) +#define for_each_present_blessed_reg(i) \ + for ((i) = 0; (i) < blessed_n; ++(i)) \ + if (find_reg(reg_list->reg, reg_list->n, blessed_reg[i])) + static const char *config_name(struct vcpu_reg_list *c) { struct vcpu_reg_sublist *s; @@ -177,6 +181,16 @@ static void run_test(struct vcpu_reg_list *c) return; } + for_each_sublist(c, s) + blessed_n += s->regs_n; + blessed_reg = calloc(blessed_n, sizeof(__u64)); + + n = 0; + for_each_sublist(c, s) { + for (i = 0; i < s->regs_n; ++i) + blessed_reg[n++] = s->regs[i]; + } + /* * We only test that we can get the register and then write back the * same value. Some registers may allow other values to be written @@ -186,8 +200,11 @@ static void run_test(struct vcpu_reg_list *c) * be written need to have the other values tested, then we should * create a new set of tests for those in a new independent test * executable. + * + * Only do the get/set tests on present, blessed list registers, + * since we don't know the capabilities of any new registers. */ - for_each_reg(i) { + for_each_present_blessed_reg(i) { uint8_t addr[2048 / 8]; struct kvm_one_reg reg = { .id = reg_list->reg[i], @@ -230,16 +247,6 @@ static void run_test(struct vcpu_reg_list *c) } } - for_each_sublist(c, s) - blessed_n += s->regs_n; - blessed_reg = calloc(blessed_n, sizeof(__u64)); - - n = 0; - for_each_sublist(c, s) { - for (i = 0; i < s->regs_n; ++i) - blessed_reg[n++] = s->regs[i]; - } - for_each_new_reg(i) ++new_regs;