From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FEB6C33CB1 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 08:06:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCAEB20748 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 08:06:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="PUDuyi0l" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726406AbgAPIGZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jan 2020 03:06:25 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.61]:41264 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726082AbgAPIGY (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jan 2020 03:06:24 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1579161983; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=T6hutKtjaQ1lNx4PJ3aLb67/cBy7jWlVyp/OF4XcnLo=; b=PUDuyi0lXrKtbT6WBYpooyUgCwTW7BX9Of8BcX8x24O4SPVncl8jpq7YFd+RcdZoJ7LD8C eSdzcNMQPExVe42quMABNRklrmP2S+egnFDUU03E4QwPPOI17Nmb8hBdDHPOioZPDZPtOq bDNgxlvbCMhP0lo1S193qhnwt119s5g= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-344-CiYYQcitPImWik046IWKbw-1; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 03:06:18 -0500 X-MC-Unique: CiYYQcitPImWik046IWKbw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAA35800D55; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 08:06:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kamzik.brq.redhat.com (unknown [10.43.2.160]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDB1C5DA70; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 08:06:11 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 09:06:09 +0100 From: Andrew Jones To: Auger Eric Cc: eric.auger.pro@gmail.com, maz@kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-arm@nongnu.org, andre.przywara@arm.com, peter.maydell@linaro.org, yuzenghui@huawei.com, alexandru.elisei@arm.com, thuth@redhat.com Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 13/16] arm/arm64: ITS: INT functional tests Message-ID: <20200116080609.thwiyi36rttnezxd@kamzik.brq.redhat.com> References: <20200110145412.14937-1-eric.auger@redhat.com> <20200110145412.14937-14-eric.auger@redhat.com> <20200113181701.jit3ywxoifduipew@kamzik.brq.redhat.com> <1c046216-b873-a4c1-4a7a-374f10947d59@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1c046216-b873-a4c1-4a7a-374f10947d59@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 06:11:23PM +0100, Auger Eric wrote: > >> +static int its_prerequisites(int nb_cpus) > >> +{ > >> + int cpu; > >> + > >> + if (!gicv3_its_base()) { > >> + report_skip("No ITS, skip ..."); > >> + return -1; > >> + } > >> + > >> + if (nr_cpus < 4) { > >> + report_skip("Test requires at least %d vcpus", nb_cpus); > >> + return -1; > > > > We have nr_cpu_check() in arm/gic.c that does a report_abort for this > > case. Is there a reason to do report_skip instead of report_abort? > Why should we mandate 4 vcpus? I don't know. It's your test :-) afaict if there aren't 4 vcpus then you skip this test and exit, which is the same thing as report_abort'ing. If you intend to run multiple tests and only want to skip a few when there aren't enough vcpus, then I agree report_skip makes some sense. On a related note, so far I've always tried to write tests that require more than one vcpu to be testable with only two, but then test even more if more are provided. Do you really need four for this test? Thanks, drew From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD4DCC33CB1 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 08:10:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7B4C2077B for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 08:10:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="PUDuyi0l" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A7B4C2077B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:38034 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1is0E5-0005IF-Pj for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 03:10:01 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:54686) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1is0Ah-0002KE-8u for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 03:06:32 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1is0Ab-00085E-1y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 03:06:30 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.120]:41624 helo=us-smtp-1.mimecast.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1is0Aa-00084U-NG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 03:06:24 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1579161983; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=T6hutKtjaQ1lNx4PJ3aLb67/cBy7jWlVyp/OF4XcnLo=; b=PUDuyi0lXrKtbT6WBYpooyUgCwTW7BX9Of8BcX8x24O4SPVncl8jpq7YFd+RcdZoJ7LD8C eSdzcNMQPExVe42quMABNRklrmP2S+egnFDUU03E4QwPPOI17Nmb8hBdDHPOioZPDZPtOq bDNgxlvbCMhP0lo1S193qhnwt119s5g= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-344-CiYYQcitPImWik046IWKbw-1; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 03:06:18 -0500 X-MC-Unique: CiYYQcitPImWik046IWKbw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAA35800D55; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 08:06:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kamzik.brq.redhat.com (unknown [10.43.2.160]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDB1C5DA70; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 08:06:11 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 09:06:09 +0100 From: Andrew Jones To: Auger Eric Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 13/16] arm/arm64: ITS: INT functional tests Message-ID: <20200116080609.thwiyi36rttnezxd@kamzik.brq.redhat.com> References: <20200110145412.14937-1-eric.auger@redhat.com> <20200110145412.14937-14-eric.auger@redhat.com> <20200113181701.jit3ywxoifduipew@kamzik.brq.redhat.com> <1c046216-b873-a4c1-4a7a-374f10947d59@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1c046216-b873-a4c1-4a7a-374f10947d59@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 205.139.110.120 X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, thuth@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, maz@kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-arm@nongnu.org, andre.przywara@arm.com, yuzenghui@huawei.com, alexandru.elisei@arm.com, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, eric.auger.pro@gmail.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 06:11:23PM +0100, Auger Eric wrote: > >> +static int its_prerequisites(int nb_cpus) > >> +{ > >> + int cpu; > >> + > >> + if (!gicv3_its_base()) { > >> + report_skip("No ITS, skip ..."); > >> + return -1; > >> + } > >> + > >> + if (nr_cpus < 4) { > >> + report_skip("Test requires at least %d vcpus", nb_cpus); > >> + return -1; > > > > We have nr_cpu_check() in arm/gic.c that does a report_abort for this > > case. Is there a reason to do report_skip instead of report_abort? > Why should we mandate 4 vcpus? I don't know. It's your test :-) afaict if there aren't 4 vcpus then you skip this test and exit, which is the same thing as report_abort'ing. If you intend to run multiple tests and only want to skip a few when there aren't enough vcpus, then I agree report_skip makes some sense. On a related note, so far I've always tried to write tests that require more than one vcpu to be testable with only two, but then test even more if more are provided. Do you really need four for this test? Thanks, drew From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D71C33CB3 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 08:06:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.11.253]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CC972075B for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 08:06:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="PUDuyi0l" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1CC972075B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9557B4B0CF; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 03:06:34 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Authentication-Results: mm01.cs.columbia.edu (amavisd-new); dkim=softfail (fail, message has been altered) header.i=@redhat.com Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gTXWgRKvGtvz; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 03:06:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 135144B133; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 03:06:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92E214B156 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 03:06:28 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8gwZDklANKnm for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 03:06:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA7C24B0CF for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 03:06:23 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1579161983; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=T6hutKtjaQ1lNx4PJ3aLb67/cBy7jWlVyp/OF4XcnLo=; b=PUDuyi0lXrKtbT6WBYpooyUgCwTW7BX9Of8BcX8x24O4SPVncl8jpq7YFd+RcdZoJ7LD8C eSdzcNMQPExVe42quMABNRklrmP2S+egnFDUU03E4QwPPOI17Nmb8hBdDHPOioZPDZPtOq bDNgxlvbCMhP0lo1S193qhnwt119s5g= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-344-CiYYQcitPImWik046IWKbw-1; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 03:06:18 -0500 X-MC-Unique: CiYYQcitPImWik046IWKbw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAA35800D55; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 08:06:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kamzik.brq.redhat.com (unknown [10.43.2.160]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDB1C5DA70; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 08:06:11 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 09:06:09 +0100 From: Andrew Jones To: Auger Eric Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 13/16] arm/arm64: ITS: INT functional tests Message-ID: <20200116080609.thwiyi36rttnezxd@kamzik.brq.redhat.com> References: <20200110145412.14937-1-eric.auger@redhat.com> <20200110145412.14937-14-eric.auger@redhat.com> <20200113181701.jit3ywxoifduipew@kamzik.brq.redhat.com> <1c046216-b873-a4c1-4a7a-374f10947d59@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1c046216-b873-a4c1-4a7a-374f10947d59@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 Cc: thuth@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, maz@kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-arm@nongnu.org, andre.przywara@arm.com, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, eric.auger.pro@gmail.com X-BeenThere: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Where KVM/ARM decisions are made List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 06:11:23PM +0100, Auger Eric wrote: > >> +static int its_prerequisites(int nb_cpus) > >> +{ > >> + int cpu; > >> + > >> + if (!gicv3_its_base()) { > >> + report_skip("No ITS, skip ..."); > >> + return -1; > >> + } > >> + > >> + if (nr_cpus < 4) { > >> + report_skip("Test requires at least %d vcpus", nb_cpus); > >> + return -1; > > > > We have nr_cpu_check() in arm/gic.c that does a report_abort for this > > case. Is there a reason to do report_skip instead of report_abort? > Why should we mandate 4 vcpus? I don't know. It's your test :-) afaict if there aren't 4 vcpus then you skip this test and exit, which is the same thing as report_abort'ing. If you intend to run multiple tests and only want to skip a few when there aren't enough vcpus, then I agree report_skip makes some sense. On a related note, so far I've always tried to write tests that require more than one vcpu to be testable with only two, but then test even more if more are provided. Do you really need four for this test? Thanks, drew _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm