From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
To: Auger Eric <eric.auger@redhat.com>
Cc: thuth@redhat.com, drjones@redhat.com, eric.auger.pro@gmail.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
pbonzini@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: KVM: AMD Nested SVM test infrastructure
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 12:46:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <877e1lf2vi.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a288001b-56a6-363b-18c0-18a1e1876ccc@redhat.com>
Auger Eric <eric.auger@redhat.com> writes:
> Hi Vitaly,
>
> On 1/20/20 11:53 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com> writes:
>>
...
>>> +
>>> +static struct test tests[] = {
>>> + /* name, supported, custom setup, l2 code, exit code, custom check, finished */
>>> + {"vmmcall", NULL, NULL, l2_vmcall, SVM_EXIT_VMMCALL},
>>> + {"vmrun", NULL, NULL, l2_vmrun, SVM_EXIT_VMRUN},
>>> + {"CR3 read intercept", NULL, prepare_cr3_intercept, l2_cr3_read, SVM_EXIT_READ_CR3},
>>> +};
>>
>> selftests are usualy not that well structured :-) E.g. we don't have
>> sub-tests and a way to specify which one to run so there is a single
>> flow when everything is being executed. I'd suggest to keep things as
>> simple as possibe (especially in the basic 'svm' test).
> In this case the differences between the tests is very tiny. One line on
> L2 and one line on L1 to check the exit status. I wondered whether it
> deserves to have separate test files for that. I did not intend to run
> the subtests separately nor to add many more subtests but rather saw all
> of them as a single basic test. More complex tests would be definitively
> separate.
>
> But if the consensus is to keep each tests separate, I will do.
>
No, I wasn't asking for that, it's just that the 'tests' array looks
like we're going to add more and more here (like we do in
kvm-unit-tests). If it's not the case you can probably simplify the code
by executing these three checks consequently without defining any
'sub-test' stuctures (like we do for other selftests). But I don't have
a strong opinion on this so we can keep things the way they are.
--
Vitaly
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-21 11:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-17 17:37 [PATCH] selftests: KVM: AMD Nested SVM test infrastructure Eric Auger
2020-01-20 10:53 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-01-21 11:12 ` Auger Eric
2020-01-21 11:46 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov [this message]
2020-01-21 12:17 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-01-21 12:50 ` Auger Eric
2020-01-21 23:02 ` Wei Huang
2020-01-22 8:45 ` Auger Eric
2020-02-03 9:26 ` Auger Eric
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=877e1lf2vi.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com \
--to=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=drjones@redhat.com \
--cc=eric.auger.pro@gmail.com \
--cc=eric.auger@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=thuth@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).