From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S936678AbcISCde (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Sep 2016 22:33:34 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f68.google.com ([209.85.220.68]:34275 "EHLO mail-pa0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751488AbcISCd0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Sep 2016 22:33:26 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 10:33:38 +0800 From: Simon Guo To: Cyril Bur Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Shuah Khan , Michael Ellerman , Chris Smart , Suraj Jitindar Singh , Michael Neuling , Anshuman Khandual , Jack Miller , Rashmica Gupta , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 13/15] selftests/powerpc: Add ptrace tests for TM SPR registers Message-ID: <20160919023338.GA3797@simonLocalRHEL7.x64> References: <1473665605-11890-1-git-send-email-wei.guo.simon@gmail.com> <1473665605-11890-14-git-send-email-wei.guo.simon@gmail.com> <1473829452.2554.19.camel@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1473829452.2554.19.camel@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 03:04:12PM +1000, Cyril Bur wrote: > On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 15:33 +0800, wei.guo.simon@gmail.com wrote: > > From: Anshuman Khandual > > > > This patch adds ptrace interface test for TM SPR registers. This > > also adds ptrace interface based helper functions related to TM > > SPR registers access. > > > > I'm seeing this one fail a lot, it does occasionally succeed but fails > a lot on my test setup. > > I use qemu on a power8 for most of my testing: > qemu-system-ppc64 --enable-kvm -machine pseries,accel=kvm,usb=off -m > 4096 -realtime mlock=off -smp 4,sockets=1,cores=2,threads=2 -nographic > -vga none Hi Cyril, Sorry for the late response. I am just back from a vacation. Strangely the case always succeed in my machine. I will try to reproduce it with your configuration. > > + if ((regs->tm_texasr != TM_SCHED) && (regs->tm_texasr != > > TM_KVM_SCHED)) > > + return TEST_FAIL; > > The above condition fails, should this test try again if this condition > is true, rather than fail? If you have the value of "regs->tm_texasr" in hand, please let me know. Thanks for the elaborated comment in other mails and I will work on that. BR, - Simon