Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 1/9] s390x: uv: Tolerate 0x100 query return code

[Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>]

On 22/09/2021 13.36, Janosch Frank wrote:
> On 9/22/21 11:12 AM, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 07:18:03 +0000
>> Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> RC 0x100 is not an error but a notice that we could have gotten more
>>> data from the Ultravisor if we had asked for it. So let's tolerate
>>> them in our tests.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>>   s390x/uv-guest.c | 4 ++--
>>>   s390x/uv-host.c  | 2 +-
>>>   2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/s390x/uv-guest.c b/s390x/uv-guest.c
>>> index f05ae4c3..e7446e03 100644
>>> --- a/s390x/uv-guest.c
>>> +++ b/s390x/uv-guest.c
>>> @@ -70,8 +70,8 @@ static void test_query(void)
>>>   	report(cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_INV_LEN, "length");
>>>   
>>>   	uvcb.header.len = sizeof(uvcb);
>>> -	cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb);
>>> -	report(cc == 0 && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED, "successful query");
>>> +	uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb);
>>> +	report(uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED || uvcb.header.rc
>>> == 0x100, "successful query");
>>
>> if you want to be even more pedantic:
>> 	report(cc == 0 && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED ||
>> 		cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == 0x100, ...
> 
> Yeah I pondered about that but at the end I chose to drop the cc check

Well, but we're in the kvm-unit-tests here where we check for the exact 
behavior of the system ... so I'd vote for keeping/extening the cc checking, 
even if it's more code to read in the end.

  Thomas