From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:43994 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726074AbgAMM6k (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jan 2020 07:58:40 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 00DCvx1e013266 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 07:58:38 -0500 Received: from e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.101]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2xfvvakg5s-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 07:58:38 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 12:58:36 -0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 13:58:32 +0100 From: Claudio Imbrenda Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v7 4/4] s390x: SCLP unit test In-Reply-To: <1b86b00a-261e-3d8c-fa52-c30e67463ad5@redhat.com> References: <20200110184050.191506-1-imbrenda@linux.ibm.com> <20200110184050.191506-5-imbrenda@linux.ibm.com> <8d7fb5c4-9e2c-e28a-16c0-658afcc8178d@redhat.com> <20200113133325.417bf657@p-imbrenda> <1b86b00a-261e-3d8c-fa52-c30e67463ad5@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20200113135832.1c6d3bb8@p-imbrenda> Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: David Hildenbrand Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, thuth@redhat.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 13:48:17 +0100 David Hildenbrand 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 :) > > > >> We would have to clear "sclp_busy" when we get a progam interrupt > >> on a servc instruction - shouldn't be too hard to add to the > >> program exception handler. > > > > Sure that could be done, but is it worth it to rework the program > > interrupt handler only for one unit test? > > Good point. I don't like this particular code, but I can live with it > :) >