| Message ID | 20210922071811.1913-2-frankja@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | s390x: Cleanup and maintenance 2 | expand |
On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 07:18:03 +0000 Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > RC 0x100 is not an error but a notice that we could have gotten more > data from the Ultravisor if we had asked for it. So let's tolerate > them in our tests. > > Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> > --- > s390x/uv-guest.c | 4 ++-- > s390x/uv-host.c | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/s390x/uv-guest.c b/s390x/uv-guest.c > index f05ae4c3..e7446e03 100644 > --- a/s390x/uv-guest.c > +++ b/s390x/uv-guest.c > @@ -70,8 +70,8 @@ static void test_query(void) > report(cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_INV_LEN, "length"); > > uvcb.header.len = sizeof(uvcb); > - cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb); > - report(cc == 0 && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED, "successful query"); > + uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb); > + report(uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED || uvcb.header.rc > == 0x100, "successful query"); if you want to be even more pedantic: report(cc == 0 && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED || cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == 0x100, ... > > /* > * These bits have been introduced with the very first > diff --git a/s390x/uv-host.c b/s390x/uv-host.c > index 28035707..66a11160 100644 > --- a/s390x/uv-host.c > +++ b/s390x/uv-host.c > @@ -401,7 +401,7 @@ static void test_query(void) > > uvcb_qui.header.len = sizeof(uvcb_qui); > uv_call(0, (uint64_t)&uvcb_qui); > - report(uvcb_qui.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED, "successful query"); > + report(uvcb_qui.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED || uvcb_qui.header.rc == 0x100, "successful query"); same here > > for (i = 0; cmds[i].name; i++) > report(uv_query_test_call(cmds[i].call_bit), "%s", cmds[i].name);
On 9/22/21 11:12 AM, Claudio Imbrenda wrote: > On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 07:18:03 +0000 > Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > >> RC 0x100 is not an error but a notice that we could have gotten more >> data from the Ultravisor if we had asked for it. So let's tolerate >> them in our tests. >> >> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> >> --- >> s390x/uv-guest.c | 4 ++-- >> s390x/uv-host.c | 2 +- >> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/s390x/uv-guest.c b/s390x/uv-guest.c >> index f05ae4c3..e7446e03 100644 >> --- a/s390x/uv-guest.c >> +++ b/s390x/uv-guest.c >> @@ -70,8 +70,8 @@ static void test_query(void) >> report(cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_INV_LEN, "length"); >> >> uvcb.header.len = sizeof(uvcb); >> - cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb); >> - report(cc == 0 && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED, "successful query"); >> + uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb); >> + report(uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED || uvcb.header.rc >> == 0x100, "successful query"); > > if you want to be even more pedantic: > report(cc == 0 && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED || > cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == 0x100, ... Yeah I pondered about that but at the end I chose to drop the cc check > >> >> /* >> * These bits have been introduced with the very first >> diff --git a/s390x/uv-host.c b/s390x/uv-host.c >> index 28035707..66a11160 100644 >> --- a/s390x/uv-host.c >> +++ b/s390x/uv-host.c >> @@ -401,7 +401,7 @@ static void test_query(void) >> >> uvcb_qui.header.len = sizeof(uvcb_qui); >> uv_call(0, (uint64_t)&uvcb_qui); >> - report(uvcb_qui.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED, "successful query"); >> + report(uvcb_qui.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED || uvcb_qui.header.rc == 0x100, "successful query"); > > same here > >> >> for (i = 0; cmds[i].name; i++) >> report(uv_query_test_call(cmds[i].call_bit), "%s", cmds[i].name); >
On 22/09/2021 13.36, Janosch Frank wrote: > On 9/22/21 11:12 AM, Claudio Imbrenda wrote: >> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 07:18:03 +0000 >> Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote: >> >>> RC 0x100 is not an error but a notice that we could have gotten more >>> data from the Ultravisor if we had asked for it. So let's tolerate >>> them in our tests. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> >>> --- >>> s390x/uv-guest.c | 4 ++-- >>> s390x/uv-host.c | 2 +- >>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/s390x/uv-guest.c b/s390x/uv-guest.c >>> index f05ae4c3..e7446e03 100644 >>> --- a/s390x/uv-guest.c >>> +++ b/s390x/uv-guest.c >>> @@ -70,8 +70,8 @@ static void test_query(void) >>> report(cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_INV_LEN, "length"); >>> >>> uvcb.header.len = sizeof(uvcb); >>> - cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb); >>> - report(cc == 0 && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED, "successful query"); >>> + uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb); >>> + report(uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED || uvcb.header.rc >>> == 0x100, "successful query"); >> >> if you want to be even more pedantic: >> report(cc == 0 && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED || >> cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == 0x100, ... > > Yeah I pondered about that but at the end I chose to drop the cc check Well, but we're in the kvm-unit-tests here where we check for the exact behavior of the system ... so I'd vote for keeping/extening the cc checking, even if it's more code to read in the end. Thomas
diff --git a/s390x/uv-guest.c b/s390x/uv-guest.c index f05ae4c3..e7446e03 100644 --- a/s390x/uv-guest.c +++ b/s390x/uv-guest.c @@ -70,8 +70,8 @@ static void test_query(void) report(cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_INV_LEN, "length"); uvcb.header.len = sizeof(uvcb); - cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb); - report(cc == 0 && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED, "successful query"); + uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb); + report(uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED || uvcb.header.rc == 0x100, "successful query"); /* * These bits have been introduced with the very first diff --git a/s390x/uv-host.c b/s390x/uv-host.c index 28035707..66a11160 100644 --- a/s390x/uv-host.c +++ b/s390x/uv-host.c @@ -401,7 +401,7 @@ static void test_query(void) uvcb_qui.header.len = sizeof(uvcb_qui); uv_call(0, (uint64_t)&uvcb_qui); - report(uvcb_qui.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED, "successful query"); + report(uvcb_qui.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED || uvcb_qui.header.rc == 0x100, "successful query"); for (i = 0; cmds[i].name; i++) report(uv_query_test_call(cmds[i].call_bit), "%s", cmds[i].name);
RC 0x100 is not an error but a notice that we could have gotten more data from the Ultravisor if we had asked for it. So let's tolerate them in our tests. Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> --- s390x/uv-guest.c | 4 ++-- s390x/uv-host.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)