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 626FBC432C0 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 18:16:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 360DE2070B for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 18:16:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="B+STy3QE" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727869AbfLBSQM (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Dec 2019 13:16:12 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.120]:60819 "EHLO us-smtp-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727845AbfLBSQL (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Dec 2019 13:16:11 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1575310570; 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: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=EoUZ4aIDaUNW5wgpOuCJZDD5XFBQFgBqp70+UzY5e1E=; b=B+STy3QEXQ4LtZ1IXbC85aJkPOKepSG6vbI/DWjpyAEZj/tu5JCXKZKpYCxnF7vkykzjpR 6uS+T52BYJvCQ60mzQVs7OMWMM1VFOxHj0Hly6ah1tOQNV7NST9bjtJ0Cg2frataYgmV3S Y95b93qAp4zt696w+1LawKyAOlgpiAg= 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-162-I6hFOvaWP_OR9c4xKBIXng-1; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 13:16:08 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5B01801E78; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 18:16:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gondolin (dhcp-192-218.str.redhat.com [10.33.192.218]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E9885C557; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 18:16:02 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 19:15:41 +0100 From: Cornelia Huck To: Pierre Morel Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, frankja@linux.ibm.com, david@redhat.com, thuth@redhat.com Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 6/9] s390x: css: stsch, enumeration test Message-ID: <20191202191541.1ffd987e.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1574945167-29677-1-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <1574945167-29677-7-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <20191202152246.4d627b0e.cohuck@redhat.com> Organization: Red Hat GmbH MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-MC-Unique: I6hFOvaWP_OR9c4xKBIXng-1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 18:53:16 +0100 Pierre Morel wrote: > On 2019-12-02 15:22, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 13:46:04 +0100 > > Pierre Morel wrote: > >> +static int test_device_sid; > >> + > >> +static void test_enumerate(void) > >> +{ > >> + struct pmcw *pmcw = &schib.pmcw; > >> + int sid; > >> + int ret, i; > >> + int found = 0; > >> + > >> + for (sid = 0; sid < 0xffff; sid++) { > >> + ret = stsch(sid|SID_ONE, &schib); > > > > This seems a bit odd. You are basically putting the subchannel number > > into sid, OR in the one, and then use the resulting value as the sid > > (subchannel identifier). > > > >> + if (!ret && (pmcw->flags & PMCW_DNV)) { > >> + report_info("SID %04x Type %s PIM %x", sid, > > > > That's not a sid, but the subchannel number (see above). > > > >> + Channel_type[pmcw->st], pmcw->pim); > >> + for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) { > >> + if ((pmcw->pim << i) & 0x80) { > >> + report_info("CHPID[%d]: %02x", i, > >> + pmcw->chpid[i]); > >> + break; > >> + } > >> + } > >> + found++; > >> + > >> + } > > > > Here, you iterate over the 0-0xffff range, even if you got a condition > > code 3 (indicating no more subchannels in that set). Is that > > intentional? > > I thought there could be more subchannels. > I need then a break in the loop when this happens. > I will reread the PoP to see how to find that no more subchannel are in > that set. The fact that cc 3 for stsch == no more subchannels is unfortunately a bit scattered across the PoP :/ Dug it out some time ago, maybe it's still in the archives somewhere... > > > > >> + if (found && !test_device_sid) > >> + test_device_sid = sid|SID_ONE; > > > > You set test_device_sid to the last valid subchannel? Why? > > The last ? I wanted the first one It is indeed the first one, -ENOCOFFEE. > > I wanted something easy but I should have explain. > > To avoid doing complicated things like doing a sense on each valid > subchannel I just take the first one. > Should be enough as we do not go to the device in this test. Yes; but you plan to reuse that code, don't you? > > > > >> + } > >> + if (!found) { > >> + report("Found %d devices", 0, found); Now that I look at this again: If you got here, you always found 0 devices, so that message is not super helpful :) > >> + return; > >> + } > >> + ret = stsch(test_device_sid, &schib); > > > > Why do you do a stsch() again? > > right, no need. > In an internal version I used to print some informations from the SCHIB. > Since in between I overwrote the SHIB, I did it again. > But in this version; no need. You could copy the schib of the subchannel to be tested to a different place, but I'm not sure it's worth it. > > > > >> + if (ret) { > >> + report("Err %d on stsch on sid %08x", 0, ret, test_device_sid); > >> + return; > >> + } > >> + report("Tested", 1); > >> + return; > > > > I don't think you need this return statement. > > right I have enough work. :) > > > > > Your test only enumerates devices in the first subchannel set. Do you > > plan to enhance the test to enable the MSS facility and iterate over > > all subchannel sets? > > Yes, it is something we can do in a following series Sure, just asked out of interest :)