[PATCH] KVM: selftests: Use TAP interface in the set_memory_region test

[PATCH] KVM: selftests: Use TAP interface in the set_memory_region test

[Thomas Huth]

Use the kselftest_harness.h interface in this test to get TAP
output, so that it is easier for the user to see what the test
is doing. (Note: We are not using the KVM_ONE_VCPU_TEST_SUITE()
macro here since these tests are creating their VMs with the
vm_create_barebones() function, not with vm_create_with_one_vcpu())

Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
---
 .../selftests/kvm/set_memory_region_test.c    | 86 +++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/set_memory_region_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/set_memory_region_test.c
index bd57d991e27d..4db6a66a3001 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/set_memory_region_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/set_memory_region_test.c
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
 #include <test_util.h>
 #include <kvm_util.h>
 #include <processor.h>
+#include "kselftest_harness.h"
 
 /*
  * s390x needs at least 1MB alignment, and the x86_64 MOVE/DELETE tests need a
@@ -38,6 +39,8 @@ extern const uint64_t final_rip_end;
 
 static sem_t vcpu_ready;
 
+int loops;
+
 static inline uint64_t guest_spin_on_val(uint64_t spin_val)
 {
 	uint64_t val;
@@ -219,6 +222,13 @@ static void test_move_memory_region(void)
 	kvm_vm_free(vm);
 }
 
+TEST(move_in_use_region)
+{
+	ksft_print_msg("Testing MOVE of in-use region, %d loops\n", loops);
+	for (int i = 0; i < loops; i++)
+		test_move_memory_region();
+}
+
 static void guest_code_delete_memory_region(void)
 {
 	uint64_t val;
@@ -308,12 +318,19 @@ static void test_delete_memory_region(void)
 	kvm_vm_free(vm);
 }
 
-static void test_zero_memory_regions(void)
+TEST(delete_in_use_region)
+{
+	ksft_print_msg("Testing DELETE of in-use region, %d loops\n", loops);
+	for (int i = 0; i < loops; i++)
+		test_delete_memory_region();
+}
+
+TEST(zero_memory_regions)
 {
 	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
 	struct kvm_vm *vm;
 
-	pr_info("Testing KVM_RUN with zero added memory regions\n");
+	ksft_print_msg("Testing KVM_RUN with zero added memory regions\n");
 
 	vm = vm_create_barebones();
 	vcpu = __vm_vcpu_add(vm, 0);
@@ -326,7 +343,7 @@ static void test_zero_memory_regions(void)
 }
 #endif /* __x86_64__ */
 
-static void test_invalid_memory_region_flags(void)
+TEST(invalid_memory_region_flags)
 {
 	uint32_t supported_flags = KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES;
 	const uint32_t v2_only_flags = KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD;
@@ -389,7 +406,7 @@ static void test_invalid_memory_region_flags(void)
  * Test it can be added memory slots up to KVM_CAP_NR_MEMSLOTS, then any
  * tentative to add further slots should fail.
  */
-static void test_add_max_memory_regions(void)
+TEST(add_max_memory_regions)
 {
 	int ret;
 	struct kvm_vm *vm;
@@ -408,13 +425,13 @@ static void test_add_max_memory_regions(void)
 	max_mem_slots = kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_NR_MEMSLOTS);
 	TEST_ASSERT(max_mem_slots > 0,
 		    "KVM_CAP_NR_MEMSLOTS should be greater than 0");
-	pr_info("Allowed number of memory slots: %i\n", max_mem_slots);
+	ksft_print_msg("Allowed number of memory slots: %i\n", max_mem_slots);
 
 	vm = vm_create_barebones();
 
 	/* Check it can be added memory slots up to the maximum allowed */
-	pr_info("Adding slots 0..%i, each memory region with %dK size\n",
-		(max_mem_slots - 1), MEM_REGION_SIZE >> 10);
+	ksft_print_msg("Adding slots 0..%i, each memory region with %dK size\n",
+		       (max_mem_slots - 1), MEM_REGION_SIZE >> 10);
 
 	mem = mmap(NULL, (size_t)max_mem_slots * MEM_REGION_SIZE + alignment,
 		   PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
@@ -455,12 +472,21 @@ static void test_invalid_guest_memfd(struct kvm_vm *vm, int memfd,
 	TEST_ASSERT(r == -1 && errno == EINVAL, "%s", msg);
 }
 
-static void test_add_private_memory_region(void)
+static bool has_cap_guest_memfd(void)
+{
+	return kvm_has_cap(KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD) &&
+	       (kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_VM_TYPES) & BIT(KVM_X86_SW_PROTECTED_VM));
+}
+
+TEST(add_private_memory_region)
 {
 	struct kvm_vm *vm, *vm2;
 	int memfd, i;
 
-	pr_info("Testing ADD of KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD memory regions\n");
+	if (!has_cap_guest_memfd())
+		SKIP(return, "Missing KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD / KVM_X86_SW_PROTECTED_VM");
+
+	ksft_print_msg("Testing ADD of KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD memory regions\n");
 
 	vm = vm_create_barebones_protected_vm();
 
@@ -491,13 +517,16 @@ static void test_add_private_memory_region(void)
 	kvm_vm_free(vm);
 }
 
-static void test_add_overlapping_private_memory_regions(void)
+TEST(add_overlapping_private_memory_regions)
 {
 	struct kvm_vm *vm;
 	int memfd;
 	int r;
 
-	pr_info("Testing ADD of overlapping KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD memory regions\n");
+	if (!has_cap_guest_memfd())
+		SKIP(return, "Missing KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD / KVM_X86_SW_PROTECTED_VM");
+
+	ksft_print_msg("Testing ADD of overlapping KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD memory regions\n");
 
 	vm = vm_create_barebones_protected_vm();
 
@@ -536,46 +565,15 @@ static void test_add_overlapping_private_memory_regions(void)
 	close(memfd);
 	kvm_vm_free(vm);
 }
+
 #endif
 
 int main(int argc, char *argv[])
 {
-#ifdef __x86_64__
-	int i, loops;
-
-	/*
-	 * FIXME: the zero-memslot test fails on aarch64 and s390x because
-	 * KVM_RUN fails with ENOEXEC or EFAULT.
-	 */
-	test_zero_memory_regions();
-#endif
-
-	test_invalid_memory_region_flags();
-
-	test_add_max_memory_regions();
-
-#ifdef __x86_64__
-	if (kvm_has_cap(KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD) &&
-	    (kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_VM_TYPES) & BIT(KVM_X86_SW_PROTECTED_VM))) {
-		test_add_private_memory_region();
-		test_add_overlapping_private_memory_regions();
-	} else {
-		pr_info("Skipping tests for KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD memory regions\n");
-	}
-
 	if (argc > 1)
 		loops = atoi_positive("Number of iterations", argv[1]);
 	else
 		loops = 10;
 
-	pr_info("Testing MOVE of in-use region, %d loops\n", loops);
-	for (i = 0; i < loops; i++)
-		test_move_memory_region();
-
-	pr_info("Testing DELETE of in-use region, %d loops\n", loops);
-	for (i = 0; i < loops; i++)
-		test_delete_memory_region();
-#endif
-
-	return 0;
+	return test_harness_run(argc, argv);
 }
-- 
2.44.0

Re: [PATCH] KVM: selftests: Use TAP interface in the set_memory_region test

[Muhammad Usama Anjum]

On 4/26/24 1:55 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> Use the kselftest_harness.h interface in this test to get TAP
> output, so that it is easier for the user to see what the test
> is doing. (Note: We are not using the KVM_ONE_VCPU_TEST_SUITE()
> macro here since these tests are creating their VMs with the
> vm_create_barebones() function, not with vm_create_with_one_vcpu())
Thank you for the patch. I'm unable to apply the patch on next-20240426.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> ---
>  .../selftests/kvm/set_memory_region_test.c    | 86 +++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/set_memory_region_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/set_memory_region_test.c
> index bd57d991e27d..4db6a66a3001 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/set_memory_region_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/set_memory_region_test.c
> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
>  #include <test_util.h>
>  #include <kvm_util.h>
>  #include <processor.h>
> +#include "kselftest_harness.h"
>  
>  /*
>   * s390x needs at least 1MB alignment, and the x86_64 MOVE/DELETE tests need a
> @@ -38,6 +39,8 @@ extern const uint64_t final_rip_end;
>  
>  static sem_t vcpu_ready;
>  
> +int loops;
> +
>  static inline uint64_t guest_spin_on_val(uint64_t spin_val)
>  {
>  	uint64_t val;
> @@ -219,6 +222,13 @@ static void test_move_memory_region(void)
>  	kvm_vm_free(vm);
>  }
>  
> +TEST(move_in_use_region)
> +{
> +	ksft_print_msg("Testing MOVE of in-use region, %d loops\n", loops);
> +	for (int i = 0; i < loops; i++)
> +		test_move_memory_region();
> +}
> +
>  static void guest_code_delete_memory_region(void)
>  {
>  	uint64_t val;
> @@ -308,12 +318,19 @@ static void test_delete_memory_region(void)
>  	kvm_vm_free(vm);
>  }
>  
> -static void test_zero_memory_regions(void)
> +TEST(delete_in_use_region)
> +{
> +	ksft_print_msg("Testing DELETE of in-use region, %d loops\n", loops);
> +	for (int i = 0; i < loops; i++)
> +		test_delete_memory_region();
> +}
> +
> +TEST(zero_memory_regions)
>  {
>  	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
>  	struct kvm_vm *vm;
>  
> -	pr_info("Testing KVM_RUN with zero added memory regions\n");
> +	ksft_print_msg("Testing KVM_RUN with zero added memory regions\n");
>  
>  	vm = vm_create_barebones();
>  	vcpu = __vm_vcpu_add(vm, 0);
> @@ -326,7 +343,7 @@ static void test_zero_memory_regions(void)
>  }
>  #endif /* __x86_64__ */
>  
> -static void test_invalid_memory_region_flags(void)
> +TEST(invalid_memory_region_flags)
>  {
>  	uint32_t supported_flags = KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES;
>  	const uint32_t v2_only_flags = KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD;
> @@ -389,7 +406,7 @@ static void test_invalid_memory_region_flags(void)
>   * Test it can be added memory slots up to KVM_CAP_NR_MEMSLOTS, then any
>   * tentative to add further slots should fail.
>   */
> -static void test_add_max_memory_regions(void)
> +TEST(add_max_memory_regions)
>  {
>  	int ret;
>  	struct kvm_vm *vm;
> @@ -408,13 +425,13 @@ static void test_add_max_memory_regions(void)
>  	max_mem_slots = kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_NR_MEMSLOTS);
>  	TEST_ASSERT(max_mem_slots > 0,
>  		    "KVM_CAP_NR_MEMSLOTS should be greater than 0");
> -	pr_info("Allowed number of memory slots: %i\n", max_mem_slots);
> +	ksft_print_msg("Allowed number of memory slots: %i\n", max_mem_slots);
>  
>  	vm = vm_create_barebones();
>  
>  	/* Check it can be added memory slots up to the maximum allowed */
> -	pr_info("Adding slots 0..%i, each memory region with %dK size\n",
> -		(max_mem_slots - 1), MEM_REGION_SIZE >> 10);
> +	ksft_print_msg("Adding slots 0..%i, each memory region with %dK size\n",
> +		       (max_mem_slots - 1), MEM_REGION_SIZE >> 10);
>  
>  	mem = mmap(NULL, (size_t)max_mem_slots * MEM_REGION_SIZE + alignment,
>  		   PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
> @@ -455,12 +472,21 @@ static void test_invalid_guest_memfd(struct kvm_vm *vm, int memfd,
>  	TEST_ASSERT(r == -1 && errno == EINVAL, "%s", msg);
>  }
>  
> -static void test_add_private_memory_region(void)
> +static bool has_cap_guest_memfd(void)
> +{
> +	return kvm_has_cap(KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD) &&
> +	       (kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_VM_TYPES) & BIT(KVM_X86_SW_PROTECTED_VM));
> +}
> +
> +TEST(add_private_memory_region)
>  {
>  	struct kvm_vm *vm, *vm2;
>  	int memfd, i;
>  
> -	pr_info("Testing ADD of KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD memory regions\n");
> +	if (!has_cap_guest_memfd())
> +		SKIP(return, "Missing KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD / KVM_X86_SW_PROTECTED_VM");
> +
> +	ksft_print_msg("Testing ADD of KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD memory regions\n");
>  
>  	vm = vm_create_barebones_protected_vm();
>  
> @@ -491,13 +517,16 @@ static void test_add_private_memory_region(void)
>  	kvm_vm_free(vm);
>  }
>  
> -static void test_add_overlapping_private_memory_regions(void)
> +TEST(add_overlapping_private_memory_regions)
>  {
>  	struct kvm_vm *vm;
>  	int memfd;
>  	int r;
>  
> -	pr_info("Testing ADD of overlapping KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD memory regions\n");
> +	if (!has_cap_guest_memfd())
> +		SKIP(return, "Missing KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD / KVM_X86_SW_PROTECTED_VM");
> +
> +	ksft_print_msg("Testing ADD of overlapping KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD memory regions\n");
>  
>  	vm = vm_create_barebones_protected_vm();
>  
> @@ -536,46 +565,15 @@ static void test_add_overlapping_private_memory_regions(void)
>  	close(memfd);
>  	kvm_vm_free(vm);
>  }
> +
>  #endif
>  
>  int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>  {
> -#ifdef __x86_64__
> -	int i, loops;
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * FIXME: the zero-memslot test fails on aarch64 and s390x because
> -	 * KVM_RUN fails with ENOEXEC or EFAULT.
> -	 */
> -	test_zero_memory_regions();
> -#endif
> -
> -	test_invalid_memory_region_flags();
> -
> -	test_add_max_memory_regions();
> -
> -#ifdef __x86_64__
> -	if (kvm_has_cap(KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD) &&
> -	    (kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_VM_TYPES) & BIT(KVM_X86_SW_PROTECTED_VM))) {
> -		test_add_private_memory_region();
> -		test_add_overlapping_private_memory_regions();
> -	} else {
> -		pr_info("Skipping tests for KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD memory regions\n");
> -	}
> -
>  	if (argc > 1)
>  		loops = atoi_positive("Number of iterations", argv[1]);
>  	else
>  		loops = 10;
>  
> -	pr_info("Testing MOVE of in-use region, %d loops\n", loops);
> -	for (i = 0; i < loops; i++)
> -		test_move_memory_region();
> -
> -	pr_info("Testing DELETE of in-use region, %d loops\n", loops);
> -	for (i = 0; i < loops; i++)
> -		test_delete_memory_region();
> -#endif
> -
> -	return 0;
> +	return test_harness_run(argc, argv);
>  }

-- 
BR,
Muhammad Usama Anjum

Re: [PATCH] KVM: selftests: Use TAP interface in the set_memory_region test

[Andrew Jones]

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 10:55:56AM GMT, Thomas Huth wrote:
> Use the kselftest_harness.h interface in this test to get TAP
> output, so that it is easier for the user to see what the test
> is doing. (Note: We are not using the KVM_ONE_VCPU_TEST_SUITE()
> macro here since these tests are creating their VMs with the
> vm_create_barebones() function, not with vm_create_with_one_vcpu())
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> ---
>  .../selftests/kvm/set_memory_region_test.c    | 86 +++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/set_memory_region_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/set_memory_region_test.c
> index bd57d991e27d..4db6a66a3001 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/set_memory_region_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/set_memory_region_test.c
> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
>  #include <test_util.h>
>  #include <kvm_util.h>
>  #include <processor.h>
> +#include "kselftest_harness.h"
>  
>  /*
>   * s390x needs at least 1MB alignment, and the x86_64 MOVE/DELETE tests need a
> @@ -38,6 +39,8 @@ extern const uint64_t final_rip_end;
>  
>  static sem_t vcpu_ready;
>  
> +int loops;

nit: static

> +
>  static inline uint64_t guest_spin_on_val(uint64_t spin_val)
>  {
>  	uint64_t val;
> @@ -219,6 +222,13 @@ static void test_move_memory_region(void)
>  	kvm_vm_free(vm);
>  }
>  
> +TEST(move_in_use_region)
> +{
> +	ksft_print_msg("Testing MOVE of in-use region, %d loops\n", loops);
> +	for (int i = 0; i < loops; i++)
> +		test_move_memory_region();
> +}
> +
>  static void guest_code_delete_memory_region(void)
>  {
>  	uint64_t val;
> @@ -308,12 +318,19 @@ static void test_delete_memory_region(void)
>  	kvm_vm_free(vm);
>  }
>  
> -static void test_zero_memory_regions(void)
> +TEST(delete_in_use_region)
> +{
> +	ksft_print_msg("Testing DELETE of in-use region, %d loops\n", loops);
> +	for (int i = 0; i < loops; i++)
> +		test_delete_memory_region();
> +}
> +
> +TEST(zero_memory_regions)
>  {
>  	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
>  	struct kvm_vm *vm;
>  
> -	pr_info("Testing KVM_RUN with zero added memory regions\n");
> +	ksft_print_msg("Testing KVM_RUN with zero added memory regions\n");
>  
>  	vm = vm_create_barebones();
>  	vcpu = __vm_vcpu_add(vm, 0);
> @@ -326,7 +343,7 @@ static void test_zero_memory_regions(void)
>  }
>  #endif /* __x86_64__ */
>  
> -static void test_invalid_memory_region_flags(void)
> +TEST(invalid_memory_region_flags)
>  {
>  	uint32_t supported_flags = KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES;
>  	const uint32_t v2_only_flags = KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD;
> @@ -389,7 +406,7 @@ static void test_invalid_memory_region_flags(void)
>   * Test it can be added memory slots up to KVM_CAP_NR_MEMSLOTS, then any
>   * tentative to add further slots should fail.
>   */
> -static void test_add_max_memory_regions(void)
> +TEST(add_max_memory_regions)
>  {
>  	int ret;
>  	struct kvm_vm *vm;
> @@ -408,13 +425,13 @@ static void test_add_max_memory_regions(void)
>  	max_mem_slots = kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_NR_MEMSLOTS);
>  	TEST_ASSERT(max_mem_slots > 0,
>  		    "KVM_CAP_NR_MEMSLOTS should be greater than 0");
> -	pr_info("Allowed number of memory slots: %i\n", max_mem_slots);
> +	ksft_print_msg("Allowed number of memory slots: %i\n", max_mem_slots);
>  
>  	vm = vm_create_barebones();
>  
>  	/* Check it can be added memory slots up to the maximum allowed */
> -	pr_info("Adding slots 0..%i, each memory region with %dK size\n",
> -		(max_mem_slots - 1), MEM_REGION_SIZE >> 10);
> +	ksft_print_msg("Adding slots 0..%i, each memory region with %dK size\n",
> +		       (max_mem_slots - 1), MEM_REGION_SIZE >> 10);
>  
>  	mem = mmap(NULL, (size_t)max_mem_slots * MEM_REGION_SIZE + alignment,
>  		   PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
> @@ -455,12 +472,21 @@ static void test_invalid_guest_memfd(struct kvm_vm *vm, int memfd,
>  	TEST_ASSERT(r == -1 && errno == EINVAL, "%s", msg);
>  }
>  
> -static void test_add_private_memory_region(void)
> +static bool has_cap_guest_memfd(void)
> +{
> +	return kvm_has_cap(KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD) &&
> +	       (kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_VM_TYPES) & BIT(KVM_X86_SW_PROTECTED_VM));
> +}
> +
> +TEST(add_private_memory_region)
>  {
>  	struct kvm_vm *vm, *vm2;
>  	int memfd, i;
>  
> -	pr_info("Testing ADD of KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD memory regions\n");
> +	if (!has_cap_guest_memfd())
> +		SKIP(return, "Missing KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD / KVM_X86_SW_PROTECTED_VM");
> +
> +	ksft_print_msg("Testing ADD of KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD memory regions\n");
>  
>  	vm = vm_create_barebones_protected_vm();
>  
> @@ -491,13 +517,16 @@ static void test_add_private_memory_region(void)
>  	kvm_vm_free(vm);
>  }
>  
> -static void test_add_overlapping_private_memory_regions(void)
> +TEST(add_overlapping_private_memory_regions)
>  {
>  	struct kvm_vm *vm;
>  	int memfd;
>  	int r;
>  
> -	pr_info("Testing ADD of overlapping KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD memory regions\n");
> +	if (!has_cap_guest_memfd())
> +		SKIP(return, "Missing KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD / KVM_X86_SW_PROTECTED_VM");
> +
> +	ksft_print_msg("Testing ADD of overlapping KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD memory regions\n");
>  
>  	vm = vm_create_barebones_protected_vm();
>  
> @@ -536,46 +565,15 @@ static void test_add_overlapping_private_memory_regions(void)
>  	close(memfd);
>  	kvm_vm_free(vm);
>  }
> +
>  #endif
>  
>  int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>  {
> -#ifdef __x86_64__
> -	int i, loops;
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * FIXME: the zero-memslot test fails on aarch64 and s390x because
> -	 * KVM_RUN fails with ENOEXEC or EFAULT.
> -	 */
> -	test_zero_memory_regions();
> -#endif
> -
> -	test_invalid_memory_region_flags();
> -
> -	test_add_max_memory_regions();
> -
> -#ifdef __x86_64__
> -	if (kvm_has_cap(KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD) &&
> -	    (kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_VM_TYPES) & BIT(KVM_X86_SW_PROTECTED_VM))) {
> -		test_add_private_memory_region();
> -		test_add_overlapping_private_memory_regions();
> -	} else {
> -		pr_info("Skipping tests for KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD memory regions\n");
> -	}
> -
>  	if (argc > 1)
>  		loops = atoi_positive("Number of iterations", argv[1]);
>  	else
>  		loops = 10;
>  
> -	pr_info("Testing MOVE of in-use region, %d loops\n", loops);
> -	for (i = 0; i < loops; i++)
> -		test_move_memory_region();
> -
> -	pr_info("Testing DELETE of in-use region, %d loops\n", loops);
> -	for (i = 0; i < loops; i++)
> -		test_delete_memory_region();
> -#endif
> -
> -	return 0;
> +	return test_harness_run(argc, argv);
>  }
> -- 
> 2.44.0
>

Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>

Thanks,
drew

Re: [PATCH] KVM: selftests: Use TAP interface in the set_memory_region test

[Thomas Huth]

On 26/04/2024 12.07, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> On 4/26/24 1:55 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> Use the kselftest_harness.h interface in this test to get TAP
>> output, so that it is easier for the user to see what the test
>> is doing. (Note: We are not using the KVM_ONE_VCPU_TEST_SUITE()
>> macro here since these tests are creating their VMs with the
>> vm_create_barebones() function, not with vm_create_with_one_vcpu())
> Thank you for the patch. I'm unable to apply the patch on next-20240426.

Ah, I was using the master branch ... it's a context conflict due to 
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/virt/kvm/kvm.git/commit/?id=dfc083a181bac ... 
I'll send a v2 rebased to the next branch.

  Thomas