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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32065C7EE45 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2023 02:35:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233661AbjFJCfj (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2023 22:35:39 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:49514 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229942AbjFJCfh (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2023 22:35:37 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x429.google.com (mail-pf1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::429]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3369235B3; Fri, 9 Jun 2023 19:35:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x429.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-65314ee05c6so2103964b3a.1; Fri, 09 Jun 2023 19:35:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1686364535; x=1688956535; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=B+cQ2OwbycVyxFVqiOSniKxXaS+hWOW1t5Cl7Mhvz3A=; b=Kb6eH8l3yhks8jc06qIZNQE1A8b6Q8s5z7YxYMQtG84G5idJNCwHY54K2aO+07BVS5 kVtoqyGLMuNUelZqpalq41FDA8pNkYCcXjCVGGBapbfFqUJ4WSsdkvz7PCNssfTj/Xa8 5MeFd1LjBHZo35Zu32oCkV1iO99HnUueFmuPioQlNu6KFlTDvjXnvErrqP+mmyAkZtbF gka37/1OCMSyGaD6KC6epfW2C0i/wirz53++DZI0bR0cNqJfWjqW/1PpEyU5NZDpv7O0 CnKTY14bKBRCa5kXDZSvXPOsmMxbMOpwlAqTcIhkUC/6dIUhbTKPiD7sS5/BZgVX7Mvt xkow== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1686364535; x=1688956535; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=B+cQ2OwbycVyxFVqiOSniKxXaS+hWOW1t5Cl7Mhvz3A=; b=XRMb230QOqwq7aOVqVp4EQ/mssGd75/Hh08god+OrQ//ZVgyukOCSRUgBja138j3q0 F2lNaiXZWjWn2jif9Wfkgvr/348bklRcFMRalecCcS0+MRELeJoHzf/+VeMHe8kUzlZI ZKY5Efi3OOcFK4stNFTQgoFGp8LB4ZAsQWHHmzjKmIpGTjAfV1Eu65eRNTIe+HU7p2sy MFrQmVfIgO5Zsi57HZEV3ei0Ly88r3DOGQWH+2a8gCm3gtxjYmEz1wnXai0Xves86AYh dbQ0NE+VynBBYykUx4QDfMwyACgGYGbYb1J/DIsMgp6y28S2aWkhAWHlnC1RJLcE5Qkw 8Cww== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDyjD5MeFZF+zw1C+KCPVMBzTvNgY/B+MtemiDhCzGv+EG8NcKOH EtCWSHFL6cj9bgzoUX7tIisLZUKCLxLqTJHQ32c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ6rNnkh2m1Yt4Pj3/pGOqJ4UHP9zSc6CE3jFoWY+FrVfA5ENGv5ysmIcDXuIOSFDb9BxkKoP9BiytTg0kXa/dU= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:e616:b0:105:94e5:f5c5 with SMTP id my22-20020a056a20e61600b0010594e5f5c5mr2595006pzb.56.1686364535616; Fri, 09 Jun 2023 19:35:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <73045958d9ab71d5266d012f1e13061afa8c5331.1686275310.git.haibo1.xu@intel.com> <20230609-05521f954b0485c69612f00b@orel> In-Reply-To: <20230609-05521f954b0485c69612f00b@orel> From: Haibo Xu Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2023 10:35:24 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/10] KVM: riscv: selftests: Skip some registers set operation To: Andrew Jones Cc: Haibo Xu , maz@kernel.org, oliver.upton@linux.dev, seanjc@google.com, Paolo Bonzini , Jonathan Corbet , Anup Patel , Atish Patra , Paul Walmsley , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou , Shuah Khan , James Morse , Suzuki K Poulose , Zenghui Yu , David Matlack , Ben Gardon , Vipin Sharma , Colton Lewis , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 5:24=E2=80=AFPM Andrew Jones wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 10:12:17AM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote: > > Set operation on some riscv registers(mostly pesudo ones) was not > > supported and should be skipped in the get-reg-list test. Just > > reuse the rejects_set utilities to handle it in riscv. > > > > Signed-off-by: Haibo Xu > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones > > --- > > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/get-reg-list.c | 20 +++++++++++++------- > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/get-reg-list.c b/tools/testing= /selftests/kvm/get-reg-list.c > > index c4bd5a5259da..abacb95c21c6 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/get-reg-list.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/get-reg-list.c > > @@ -211,16 +211,22 @@ static void run_test(struct vcpu_reg_list *c) > > ++failed_get; > > } > > > > - /* rejects_set registers are rejected after KVM_ARM_VCPU_= FINALIZE */ > > + /* > > + * rejects_set registers are rejected after KVM_ARM_VCPU_= FINALIZE on aarch64, > > + * or registers that should skip set operation on riscv. > > + */ > > for_each_sublist(c, s) { > > if (s->rejects_set && find_reg(s->rejects_set, s-= >rejects_set_n, reg.id)) { > > reject_reg =3D true; > > - ret =3D __vcpu_ioctl(vcpu, KVM_SET_ONE_RE= G, ®); > > - if (ret !=3D -1 || errno !=3D EPERM) { > > - printf("%s: Failed to reject (ret= =3D%d, errno=3D%d) ", config_name(c), ret, errno); > > - print_reg(config_name(c), reg.id)= ; > > - putchar('\n'); > > - ++failed_reject; > > + if ((reg.id & KVM_REG_ARCH_MASK) =3D=3D K= VM_REG_ARM64) { > > + ret =3D __vcpu_ioctl(vcpu, KVM_SE= T_ONE_REG, ®); > > + if (ret !=3D -1 || errno !=3D EPE= RM) { > > + printf("%s: Failed to rej= ect (ret=3D%d, errno=3D%d) ", > > + config_na= me(c), ret, errno); > > + print_reg(config_name(c),= reg.id); > > + putchar('\n'); > > + ++failed_reject; > > + } > > Thinking about this some more, shouldn't we attempt the set ioctl for > riscv reject registers as well, but look for different error numbers? > Yes, we can. Currently, 2 different errno(EOPNOTSUPP/EINVAL) would be reported for the rejected registers in risc-v. These 2 errnos can be handled specially like below: diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/get-reg-list.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/get-reg-list.c index 73f40e0842b8..f3f2c4519318 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/get-reg-list.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/get-reg-list.c @@ -255,6 +255,15 @@ static void run_test(struct vcpu_reg_list *c) putchar('\n'); ++failed_reject; } + } else { + ret =3D __vcpu_ioctl(vcpu, KVM_SET_ONE_REG, ®); + if (ret !=3D -1 || (errno !=3D EINVAL && errno !=3D EOPNOTSUPP)) { + printf("%s: Failed to reject (ret=3D%d, errno=3D%d) ", + config_name(c), ret, errno); + print_reg(config_name(c), reg.id); + putchar('\n'); + ++failed_reject; + } One possible issue for the above change is that when new registers that don't support sets were added, we need to add them to the reject registers list, or the test would fail. Initially, in the v1 patch, the design was to just skip the EOPNOTSUPP errno in set operations for all registers since it's a known errno for registers that don't support sets. This change cover all the registers even for future new ones. What's your opinion? Thanks, Haibo > Thanks, > drew