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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4E50C433EF for ; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 11:10:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S240047AbhLFLNe (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Dec 2021 06:13:34 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:51664 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236157AbhLFLN2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Dec 2021 06:13:28 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1B6AqQla011803; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 11:09:59 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=upx2NMApNjcYQ1ik3dnYXVDiwrxpQkOBfXZHbJp6zsY=; b=DM5+uQHn1AbFIXeHhe7QpkRqMSxLCIEpJ2YBLDnx4DkDu2zryBpkkMk0LGIjvfFjZ9yp feD5r0onqxt/vylFqy2vhnDMo6SLlLdGVxaXFfPmwaVUgB2yhvESmm6/VGE06sYEQ9MP CFvVzegzYaALNjrFb8Y4NxJpsARmbY0kAGGFPJ9UvpYD9xPnwgw1EOHWgJl+zABeBdno xUNxklx+AxiTxeIfpTJBe8mHjqhhVfS1A9fmVpkAjzYAEj2oC1MxW51PdlbFbxxk9x3I 1W5fvcoloz2d86/oNXBVewYxxnSN+qEzvQZHP49dkviJenUkW3jWiGcTw9X5kUm2EtDx xQ== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3csb0c709u-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 06 Dec 2021 11:09:58 +0000 Received: from m0187473.ppops.net (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 1B6B5Vso030157; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 11:09:58 GMT Received: from ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (6b.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.107]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3csb0c7090-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 06 Dec 2021 11:09:58 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1B6B7ptV017867; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 11:09:56 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3cqyy92trv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 06 Dec 2021 11:09:55 +0000 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 1B6B9qR020644220 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 6 Dec 2021 11:09:52 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C183A40A5; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 11:09:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5B9EA40A1; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 11:09:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from p-imbrenda (unknown [9.145.0.173]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 11:09:51 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 12:09:49 +0100 From: Claudio Imbrenda To: David Hildenbrand Cc: Thomas Huth , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Janosch Frank , Christian Borntraeger , Sebastian Mitterle , Halil Pasic , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 2/2] s390x: firq: floating interrupt test Message-ID: <20211206120949.706b6dc0@p-imbrenda> In-Reply-To: <959de529-503e-6dbf-b4ea-67e13252a86a@redhat.com> References: <20211202123553.96412-1-david@redhat.com> <20211202123553.96412-3-david@redhat.com> <11f0ff2f-2bae-0f1b-753f-b0e9dc24b345@redhat.com> <20211203121819.145696b0@p-imbrenda> <959de529-503e-6dbf-b4ea-67e13252a86a@redhat.com> Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.18.0 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: lDV8U3djrwxUnn4JuV9kw-wXf1BF6V9d X-Proofpoint-GUID: 7ykq6HGEzqN6PBvkoIy6Z9vEngzyQvBE X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.790,Hydra:6.0.425,FMLib:17.11.62.513 definitions=2021-12-06_04,2021-12-06_01,2021-12-02_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2110150000 definitions=main-2112060066 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 09:15:00 +0100 David Hildenbrand wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> + > >>>>> + /* > >>>>> + * We want CPU #2 to be stopped. This should be the case at this > >>>>> + * point, however, we want to sense if it even exists as well. > >>>>> + */ > >>>>> + ret = smp_cpu_stop(2); > >>>>> + if (ret) { > >>>>> + report_skip("CPU #2 not found"); > >>>> > >>>> Since you already queried for the availablity of at least 3 CPUs above, I > >>>> think you could turn this into a report_fail() instead? > >>> > >>> either that or an assert, but again, no strong opinions > >>> > >> > >> Just because there are >= 3 CPUs doesn't imply that CPU #2 is around. > > > > Ok, fair point. But if #2 is not around, it means that the test has been run > > in the wrong way by the user... I wonder what's better in that case - to > > skip this test or to go out with a bang. Skipping the test has the advantage > > of looking a little bit more "polite", but it has the disadvantage that it > > might get lost in automation, e.g. if somebody enabled the test in their CI, > > but did something wrong in the settings, they might not notice that the test > > is not run at all... > > I sticked to what we have in s390x/smp.c, where we fail if we only have > a single CPU. > > But I don't particularly care (and have to move on doing other stuff), > so I'll do whatever maintainers want and resend :) > a better solution for number != ID is needed (aka: I'll try to fix it when I have the time), for now it works, so leave it as it is.