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

[Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>]

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@linux.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>>    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