Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v7 4/4] s390x: SCLP unit test

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 13.01.20 13:58, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 13:48:17 +0100
> David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 	    
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if something like the following would be possible:
>>>>
>>>> expect_pgm_int();
>>>> ...
>>>> asm volatiole();
>>>> ...
>>>> sclp_wait_busy();
>>>> check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIFICATION);  
>>>
>>> we do not expect a specification exception, if that happens it's
>>> a bug and the test should rightfully fail.  
>>
>> Which one do we expect? (you're not checking for a specific one,
>> should you?)
> 
> nothing, the call should succeed :)

:) I'm confused by the fact that you "expect_pgm_int()" but actually
don't expect one ...

Please enlighten me why this isn't

+	sclp_mark_busy();
+	h->length = 8;
+	sclp_setup_int();
+
+	asm volatile(
+		"       .insn   rre,0xb2204200,%1,%2\n"  /* servc %1,%2 */
+		"       ipm     %0\n"
+		"       srl     %0,28"
+		: "=&d" (cc) : "d" (valid_code), "a" (__pa(pagebuf))
+		: "cc", "memory");
+	if (!cc)
+		sclp_wait_busy();
+	report(cc == 0, "Instruction format ignored bits");

I feel like I am missing something important.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb