Re: [PATCH v2 7/8] KVM: riscv: selftest: Change vcpu_has_ext to a common function

[Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>]

On Thu, Sep 07, 2023 at 11:57:00AM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 6:10 PM Haibo Xu <xiaobo55x@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 10:04 PM Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Sep 02, 2023 at 08:59:29PM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/riscv/get-reg-list.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/riscv/get-reg-list.c
> > > > index d8ecacd03ecf..c4028bf32e3f 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/riscv/get-reg-list.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/riscv/get-reg-list.c
> > > > @@ -44,20 +44,6 @@ bool check_reject_set(int err)
> > > >       return err == EINVAL;
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > > -static inline bool vcpu_has_ext(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int ext)
> > > > -{
> > > > -     int ret;
> > > > -     unsigned long value;
> > > > -
> > > > -     ret = __vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, RISCV_ISA_EXT_REG(ext), &value);
> > > > -     if (ret) {
> > > > -             printf("Failed to get ext %d", ext);
> > > > -             return false;
> > > > -     }
> > > > -
> > > > -     return !!value;
> > >
> > > get-reg-list will now assert on get-reg when an extension isn't present,
> > > rather than failing the __TEST_REQUIRE(), which would do a skip instead.
> > > We need both the return false version and the assert version.
> > >
> >
> > Ok, Will keep this one for get-reg-list and add another one for
> > arch-timer specific usage.
> >
> 
> Just thought about it again, maybe we only need the "return false"
> version for both get-reg-list
> and arch-timer tests since if an extension was not available, the test
> can be skipped with a message.
> 
> bool vcpu_has_ext(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int ext)
> {
>        unsigned long value = 0;
> 
>        __vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, RISCV_ISA_EXT_REG(ext), &value);
> 
>        return !!value;
> }

Yup, I had actually seen that when reviewing a later patch in this series,
but I wasn't concerned if we added the assert type anyway, since we
frequently end up with the two function types for KVM queries. If we don't
have a need for an assert type yet, then we don't need to introduce it.
However, we should introduce the non-assert type as __vcpu_has_ext(),
reserving the vcpu_has_ext() name for the assert type, per the kvm
selftests naming convention.

Thanks,
drew

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv