Subcode 3.2.2 is handled by KVM/QEMU and should therefore be tested
a bit more thorough.

In this test we set a custom name and uuid through the QEMU command
line. Both parameters will be passed to the guest on a stsi subcode
3.2.2 call and will then be checked.

We also compare the configured cpu numbers against the smp reported
numbers and if the reserved + configured add up to the total number
reported.

Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
---

* Tabify on struct
* Moved prefix_push up a bit
* Replaced returns with goto out to pop prefix

---
 s390x/stsi.c        | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 s390x/unittests.cfg |  1 +
 2 files changed, 74 insertions(+)

diff --git a/s390x/stsi.c b/s390x/stsi.c
index e9206bca137d2edb..17ad33eefb9c948a 100644
--- a/s390x/stsi.c
+++ b/s390x/stsi.c
@@ -14,7 +14,28 @@
 #include <asm/page.h>
 #include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
 #include <asm/interrupt.h>
+#include <smp.h>
 
+struct stsi_322 {
+    uint8_t reserved[31];
+    uint8_t count;
+    struct {
+	uint8_t reserved2[4];
+	uint16_t total_cpus;
+	uint16_t conf_cpus;
+	uint16_t standby_cpus;
+	uint16_t reserved_cpus;
+	uint8_t name[8];
+	uint32_t caf;
+	uint8_t cpi[16];
+	uint8_t reserved5[3];
+	uint8_t ext_name_encoding;
+	uint32_t reserved3;
+	uint8_t uuid[16];
+    } vm[8];
+    uint8_t reserved4[1504];
+    uint8_t ext_names[8][256];
+};
 static uint8_t pagebuf[PAGE_SIZE * 2] __attribute__((aligned(PAGE_SIZE * 2)));
 
 static void test_specs(void)
@@ -76,11 +97,63 @@ static void test_fc(void)
 	report(stsi_get_fc(pagebuf) >= 2, "query fc >= 2");
 }
 
+static void test_3_2_2(void)
+{
+	int rc;
+	/* EBCDIC for "kvm-unit" */
+	const uint8_t vm_name[] = { 0x92, 0xa5, 0x94, 0x60, 0xa4, 0x95, 0x89,
+				    0xa3 };
+	const uint8_t uuid[] = { 0x0f, 0xb8, 0x4a, 0x86, 0x72, 0x7c,
+				 0x11, 0xea, 0xbc, 0x55, 0x02, 0x42, 0xac, 0x13,
+				 0x00, 0x03 };
+	/* EBCDIC for "KVM/" */
+	const uint8_t cpi_kvm[] = { 0xd2, 0xe5, 0xd4, 0x61 };
+	const char *vm_name_ext = "kvm-unit-test";
+	struct stsi_322 *data = (void *)pagebuf;
+
+	report_prefix_push("3.2.2");
+
+	/* Is the function code available at all? */
+	if (stsi_get_fc(pagebuf) < 3) {
+		report_skip("Running under lpar, no level 3 to test.");
+		goto out;
+	}
+
+	rc = stsi(pagebuf, 3, 2, 2);
+	report(!rc, "call");
+
+	/* For now we concentrate on KVM/QEMU */
+	if (memcmp(&data->vm[0].cpi, cpi_kvm, sizeof(cpi_kvm))) {
+		report_skip("Not running under KVM/QEMU.");
+		goto out;
+	}
+
+	report(!memcmp(data->vm[0].uuid, uuid, sizeof(uuid)), "uuid");
+	report(data->vm[0].conf_cpus == smp_query_num_cpus(), "cpu # configured");
+	report(data->vm[0].total_cpus ==
+	       data->vm[0].reserved_cpus + data->vm[0].conf_cpus,
+	       "cpu # total == conf + reserved");
+	report(data->vm[0].standby_cpus == 0, "cpu # standby");
+	report(!memcmp(data->vm[0].name, vm_name, sizeof(data->vm[0].name)),
+	       "VM name == kvm-unit-test");
+
+	if (data->vm[0].ext_name_encoding != 2) {
+		report_skip("Extended VM names are not UTF-8.");
+		goto out;
+	}
+	report(!memcmp(data->ext_names[0], vm_name_ext, sizeof(vm_name_ext)),
+		       "ext VM name == kvm-unit-test");
+
+out:
+	report_prefix_pop();
+}
+
 int main(void)
 {
 	report_prefix_push("stsi");
 	test_priv();
 	test_specs();
 	test_fc();
+	test_3_2_2();
 	return report_summary();
 }
diff --git a/s390x/unittests.cfg b/s390x/unittests.cfg
index 12d46c5b402328bb..06e556836c102a14 100644
--- a/s390x/unittests.cfg
+++ b/s390x/unittests.cfg
@@ -71,6 +71,7 @@ extra_params=-device diag288,id=watchdog0 --watchdog-action inject-nmi
 
 [stsi]
 file = stsi.elf
+extra_params=-name kvm-unit-test --uuid 0fb84a86-727c-11ea-bc55-0242ac130003 -smp 1,maxcpus=8
 
 [smp]
 file = smp.elf
-- 
2.25.1

On 31.03.20 09:14, Janosch Frank wrote:
> Subcode 3.2.2 is handled by KVM/QEMU and should therefore be tested
> a bit more thorough.
> 
> In this test we set a custom name and uuid through the QEMU command
> line. Both parameters will be passed to the guest on a stsi subcode
> 3.2.2 call and will then be checked.
> 
> We also compare the configured cpu numbers against the smp reported
> numbers and if the reserved + configured add up to the total number
> reported.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> 
> * Tabify on struct
> * Moved prefix_push up a bit
> * Replaced returns with goto out to pop prefix
> 
> ---
>  s390x/stsi.c        | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  s390x/unittests.cfg |  1 +
>  2 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/s390x/stsi.c b/s390x/stsi.c
> index e9206bca137d2edb..17ad33eefb9c948a 100644
> --- a/s390x/stsi.c
> +++ b/s390x/stsi.c
> @@ -14,7 +14,28 @@
>  #include <asm/page.h>
>  #include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
>  #include <asm/interrupt.h>
> +#include <smp.h>
>  
> +struct stsi_322 {
> +    uint8_t reserved[31];
> +    uint8_t count;
> +    struct {
> +	uint8_t reserved2[4];
> +	uint16_t total_cpus;
> +	uint16_t conf_cpus;
> +	uint16_t standby_cpus;
> +	uint16_t reserved_cpus;
> +	uint8_t name[8];
> +	uint32_t caf;
> +	uint8_t cpi[16];
> +	uint8_t reserved5[3];
> +	uint8_t ext_name_encoding;
> +	uint32_t reserved3;
> +	uint8_t uuid[16];
> +    } vm[8];
> +    uint8_t reserved4[1504];
> +    uint8_t ext_names[8][256];

Sorry, still no proper use of tabs. (can fixup if you agree)


-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

On 3/31/20 10:24 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 31.03.20 09:14, Janosch Frank wrote:
>> Subcode 3.2.2 is handled by KVM/QEMU and should therefore be tested
>> a bit more thorough.
>>
>> In this test we set a custom name and uuid through the QEMU command
>> line. Both parameters will be passed to the guest on a stsi subcode
>> 3.2.2 call and will then be checked.
>>
>> We also compare the configured cpu numbers against the smp reported
>> numbers and if the reserved + configured add up to the total number
>> reported.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>
>> * Tabify on struct
>> * Moved prefix_push up a bit
>> * Replaced returns with goto out to pop prefix
>>
>> ---
>>  s390x/stsi.c        | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  s390x/unittests.cfg |  1 +
>>  2 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/s390x/stsi.c b/s390x/stsi.c
>> index e9206bca137d2edb..17ad33eefb9c948a 100644
>> --- a/s390x/stsi.c
>> +++ b/s390x/stsi.c
>> @@ -14,7 +14,28 @@
>>  #include <asm/page.h>
>>  #include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
>>  #include <asm/interrupt.h>
>> +#include <smp.h>
>>  
>> +struct stsi_322 {
>> +    uint8_t reserved[31];
>> +    uint8_t count;
>> +    struct {
>> +	uint8_t reserved2[4];
>> +	uint16_t total_cpus;
>> +	uint16_t conf_cpus;
>> +	uint16_t standby_cpus;
>> +	uint16_t reserved_cpus;
>> +	uint8_t name[8];
>> +	uint32_t caf;
>> +	uint8_t cpi[16];
>> +	uint8_t reserved5[3];
>> +	uint8_t ext_name_encoding;
>> +	uint32_t reserved3;
>> +	uint8_t uuid[16];
>> +    } vm[8];
>> +    uint8_t reserved4[1504];
>> +    uint8_t ext_names[8][256];
> 
> Sorry, still no proper use of tabs. (can fixup if you agree)
> 
Sure, go ahead

On 31.03.20 10:29, Janosch Frank wrote:
> On 3/31/20 10:24 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 31.03.20 09:14, Janosch Frank wrote:
>>> Subcode 3.2.2 is handled by KVM/QEMU and should therefore be tested
>>> a bit more thorough.
>>>
>>> In this test we set a custom name and uuid through the QEMU command
>>> line. Both parameters will be passed to the guest on a stsi subcode
>>> 3.2.2 call and will then be checked.
>>>
>>> We also compare the configured cpu numbers against the smp reported
>>> numbers and if the reserved + configured add up to the total number
>>> reported.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> * Tabify on struct
>>> * Moved prefix_push up a bit
>>> * Replaced returns with goto out to pop prefix
>>>
>>> ---
>>>  s390x/stsi.c        | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  s390x/unittests.cfg |  1 +
>>>  2 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/s390x/stsi.c b/s390x/stsi.c
>>> index e9206bca137d2edb..17ad33eefb9c948a 100644
>>> --- a/s390x/stsi.c
>>> +++ b/s390x/stsi.c
>>> @@ -14,7 +14,28 @@
>>>  #include <asm/page.h>
>>>  #include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
>>>  #include <asm/interrupt.h>
>>> +#include <smp.h>
>>>  
>>> +struct stsi_322 {
>>> +    uint8_t reserved[31];
>>> +    uint8_t count;
>>> +    struct {
>>> +	uint8_t reserved2[4];
>>> +	uint16_t total_cpus;
>>> +	uint16_t conf_cpus;
>>> +	uint16_t standby_cpus;
>>> +	uint16_t reserved_cpus;
>>> +	uint8_t name[8];
>>> +	uint32_t caf;
>>> +	uint8_t cpi[16];
>>> +	uint8_t reserved5[3];
>>> +	uint8_t ext_name_encoding;
>>> +	uint32_t reserved3;
>>> +	uint8_t uuid[16];
>>> +    } vm[8];
>>> +    uint8_t reserved4[1504];
>>> +    uint8_t ext_names[8][256];
>>
>> Sorry, still no proper use of tabs. (can fixup if you agree)
>>
> Sure, go ahead
> 
> 

Queued to

https://github.com/davidhildenbrand/kvm-unit-tests.git s390x-next

with the indentation fixed.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 03:14:56 -0400
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> Subcode 3.2.2 is handled by KVM/QEMU and should therefore be tested
> a bit more thorough.

s/thorough/thoroughly/ ?

> 
> In this test we set a custom name and uuid through the QEMU command
> line. Both parameters will be passed to the guest on a stsi subcode
> 3.2.2 call and will then be checked.
> 
> We also compare the configured cpu numbers against the smp reported
> numbers and if the reserved + configured add up to the total number
> reported.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> 
> * Tabify on struct
> * Moved prefix_push up a bit
> * Replaced returns with goto out to pop prefix
> 
> ---
>  s390x/stsi.c        | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  s390x/unittests.cfg |  1 +
>  2 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
> 

(...)

> +static void test_3_2_2(void)
> +{
> +	int rc;
> +	/* EBCDIC for "kvm-unit" */
> +	const uint8_t vm_name[] = { 0x92, 0xa5, 0x94, 0x60, 0xa4, 0x95, 0x89,
> +				    0xa3 };
> +	const uint8_t uuid[] = { 0x0f, 0xb8, 0x4a, 0x86, 0x72, 0x7c,
> +				 0x11, 0xea, 0xbc, 0x55, 0x02, 0x42, 0xac, 0x13,
> +				 0x00, 0x03 };
> +	/* EBCDIC for "KVM/" */
> +	const uint8_t cpi_kvm[] = { 0xd2, 0xe5, 0xd4, 0x61 };
> +	const char *vm_name_ext = "kvm-unit-test";
> +	struct stsi_322 *data = (void *)pagebuf;
> +
> +	report_prefix_push("3.2.2");
> +
> +	/* Is the function code available at all? */
> +	if (stsi_get_fc(pagebuf) < 3) {
> +		report_skip("Running under lpar, no level 3 to test.");
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +
> +	rc = stsi(pagebuf, 3, 2, 2);
> +	report(!rc, "call");
> +
> +	/* For now we concentrate on KVM/QEMU */
> +	if (memcmp(&data->vm[0].cpi, cpi_kvm, sizeof(cpi_kvm))) {
> +		report_skip("Not running under KVM/QEMU.");
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +
> +	report(!memcmp(data->vm[0].uuid, uuid, sizeof(uuid)), "uuid");
> +	report(data->vm[0].conf_cpus == smp_query_num_cpus(), "cpu # configured");
> +	report(data->vm[0].total_cpus ==
> +	       data->vm[0].reserved_cpus + data->vm[0].conf_cpus,
> +	       "cpu # total == conf + reserved");
> +	report(data->vm[0].standby_cpus == 0, "cpu # standby");
> +	report(!memcmp(data->vm[0].name, vm_name, sizeof(data->vm[0].name)),
> +	       "VM name == kvm-unit-test");
> +
> +	if (data->vm[0].ext_name_encoding != 2) {
> +		report_skip("Extended VM names are not UTF-8.");

Do we expect this to be anything other than UTF-8?

> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +	report(!memcmp(data->ext_names[0], vm_name_ext, sizeof(vm_name_ext)),
> +		       "ext VM name == kvm-unit-test");
> +
> +out:
> +	report_prefix_pop();
> +}
> +
>  int main(void)
>  {
>  	report_prefix_push("stsi");
>  	test_priv();
>  	test_specs();
>  	test_fc();
> +	test_3_2_2();
>  	return report_summary();
>  }

(...)

On 3/31/20 11:35 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 03:14:56 -0400
> Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> Subcode 3.2.2 is handled by KVM/QEMU and should therefore be tested
>> a bit more thorough.
> 
> s/thorough/thoroughly/ ?
> 
>>
>> In this test we set a custom name and uuid through the QEMU command
>> line. Both parameters will be passed to the guest on a stsi subcode
>> 3.2.2 call and will then be checked.
>>
>> We also compare the configured cpu numbers against the smp reported
>> numbers and if the reserved + configured add up to the total number
>> reported.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>
>> * Tabify on struct
>> * Moved prefix_push up a bit
>> * Replaced returns with goto out to pop prefix
>>
>> ---
>>  s390x/stsi.c        | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  s390x/unittests.cfg |  1 +
>>  2 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
>>
> 
> (...)
> 
>> +static void test_3_2_2(void)
>> +{
>> +	int rc;
>> +	/* EBCDIC for "kvm-unit" */
>> +	const uint8_t vm_name[] = { 0x92, 0xa5, 0x94, 0x60, 0xa4, 0x95, 0x89,
>> +				    0xa3 };
>> +	const uint8_t uuid[] = { 0x0f, 0xb8, 0x4a, 0x86, 0x72, 0x7c,
>> +				 0x11, 0xea, 0xbc, 0x55, 0x02, 0x42, 0xac, 0x13,
>> +				 0x00, 0x03 };
>> +	/* EBCDIC for "KVM/" */
>> +	const uint8_t cpi_kvm[] = { 0xd2, 0xe5, 0xd4, 0x61 };
>> +	const char *vm_name_ext = "kvm-unit-test";
>> +	struct stsi_322 *data = (void *)pagebuf;
>> +
>> +	report_prefix_push("3.2.2");
>> +
>> +	/* Is the function code available at all? */
>> +	if (stsi_get_fc(pagebuf) < 3) {
>> +		report_skip("Running under lpar, no level 3 to test.");
>> +		goto out;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	rc = stsi(pagebuf, 3, 2, 2);
>> +	report(!rc, "call");
>> +
>> +	/* For now we concentrate on KVM/QEMU */
>> +	if (memcmp(&data->vm[0].cpi, cpi_kvm, sizeof(cpi_kvm))) {
>> +		report_skip("Not running under KVM/QEMU.");
>> +		goto out;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	report(!memcmp(data->vm[0].uuid, uuid, sizeof(uuid)), "uuid");
>> +	report(data->vm[0].conf_cpus == smp_query_num_cpus(), "cpu # configured");
>> +	report(data->vm[0].total_cpus ==
>> +	       data->vm[0].reserved_cpus + data->vm[0].conf_cpus,
>> +	       "cpu # total == conf + reserved");
>> +	report(data->vm[0].standby_cpus == 0, "cpu # standby");
>> +	report(!memcmp(data->vm[0].name, vm_name, sizeof(data->vm[0].name)),
>> +	       "VM name == kvm-unit-test");
>> +
>> +	if (data->vm[0].ext_name_encoding != 2) {
>> +		report_skip("Extended VM names are not UTF-8.");
> 
> Do we expect this to be anything other than UTF-8?

With the current QEMU no.
When I find time to test this under z/VM (as a guest 2, no KVM) maybe.

> 
>> +		goto out;
>> +	}
>> +	report(!memcmp(data->ext_names[0], vm_name_ext, sizeof(vm_name_ext)),
>> +		       "ext VM name == kvm-unit-test");
>> +
>> +out:
>> +	report_prefix_pop();
>> +}
>> +
>>  int main(void)
>>  {
>>  	report_prefix_push("stsi");
>>  	test_priv();
>>  	test_specs();
>>  	test_fc();
>> +	test_3_2_2();
>>  	return report_summary();
>>  }
> 
> (...)
> 

On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:46:53 +0200
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 3/31/20 11:35 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 03:14:56 -0400
> > Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> Subcode 3.2.2 is handled by KVM/QEMU and should therefore be tested
> >> a bit more thorough.  
> > 
> > s/thorough/thoroughly/ ?
> >   
> >>
> >> In this test we set a custom name and uuid through the QEMU command
> >> line. Both parameters will be passed to the guest on a stsi subcode
> >> 3.2.2 call and will then be checked.
> >>
> >> We also compare the configured cpu numbers against the smp reported
> >> numbers and if the reserved + configured add up to the total number
> >> reported.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> * Tabify on struct
> >> * Moved prefix_push up a bit
> >> * Replaced returns with goto out to pop prefix
> >>
> >> ---
> >>  s390x/stsi.c        | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  s390x/unittests.cfg |  1 +
> >>  2 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
> >>  
> > 
> > (...)
> >   
> >> +static void test_3_2_2(void)
> >> +{
> >> +	int rc;
> >> +	/* EBCDIC for "kvm-unit" */
> >> +	const uint8_t vm_name[] = { 0x92, 0xa5, 0x94, 0x60, 0xa4, 0x95, 0x89,
> >> +				    0xa3 };
> >> +	const uint8_t uuid[] = { 0x0f, 0xb8, 0x4a, 0x86, 0x72, 0x7c,
> >> +				 0x11, 0xea, 0xbc, 0x55, 0x02, 0x42, 0xac, 0x13,
> >> +				 0x00, 0x03 };
> >> +	/* EBCDIC for "KVM/" */
> >> +	const uint8_t cpi_kvm[] = { 0xd2, 0xe5, 0xd4, 0x61 };
> >> +	const char *vm_name_ext = "kvm-unit-test";
> >> +	struct stsi_322 *data = (void *)pagebuf;
> >> +
> >> +	report_prefix_push("3.2.2");
> >> +
> >> +	/* Is the function code available at all? */
> >> +	if (stsi_get_fc(pagebuf) < 3) {
> >> +		report_skip("Running under lpar, no level 3 to test.");
> >> +		goto out;
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	rc = stsi(pagebuf, 3, 2, 2);
> >> +	report(!rc, "call");
> >> +
> >> +	/* For now we concentrate on KVM/QEMU */
> >> +	if (memcmp(&data->vm[0].cpi, cpi_kvm, sizeof(cpi_kvm))) {
> >> +		report_skip("Not running under KVM/QEMU.");
> >> +		goto out;
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	report(!memcmp(data->vm[0].uuid, uuid, sizeof(uuid)), "uuid");
> >> +	report(data->vm[0].conf_cpus == smp_query_num_cpus(), "cpu # configured");
> >> +	report(data->vm[0].total_cpus ==
> >> +	       data->vm[0].reserved_cpus + data->vm[0].conf_cpus,
> >> +	       "cpu # total == conf + reserved");
> >> +	report(data->vm[0].standby_cpus == 0, "cpu # standby");
> >> +	report(!memcmp(data->vm[0].name, vm_name, sizeof(data->vm[0].name)),
> >> +	       "VM name == kvm-unit-test");
> >> +
> >> +	if (data->vm[0].ext_name_encoding != 2) {
> >> +		report_skip("Extended VM names are not UTF-8.");  
> > 
> > Do we expect this to be anything other than UTF-8?  
> 
> With the current QEMU no.

I don't really see a reason to change this in QEMU, though; and as you
check already whether we're running under QEMU, maybe make this a
failure?

> When I find time to test this under z/VM (as a guest 2, no KVM) maybe.

Would it make sense to check (different) expected values for z/VM and
QEMU, then?

> 
> >   
> >> +		goto out;
> >> +	}
> >> +	report(!memcmp(data->ext_names[0], vm_name_ext, sizeof(vm_name_ext)),
> >> +		       "ext VM name == kvm-unit-test");
> >> +
> >> +out:
> >> +	report_prefix_pop();
> >> +}
> >> +
> >>  int main(void)
> >>  {
> >>  	report_prefix_push("stsi");
> >>  	test_priv();
> >>  	test_specs();
> >>  	test_fc();
> >> +	test_3_2_2();
> >>  	return report_summary();
> >>  }  
> > 
> > (...)
> >   
> 
> 

On 3/31/20 12:16 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:46:53 +0200
> Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/31/20 11:35 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 03:14:56 -0400
>>> Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> Subcode 3.2.2 is handled by KVM/QEMU and should therefore be tested
>>>> a bit more thorough.  
>>>
>>> s/thorough/thoroughly/ ?
>>>   
>>>>
>>>> In this test we set a custom name and uuid through the QEMU command
>>>> line. Both parameters will be passed to the guest on a stsi subcode
>>>> 3.2.2 call and will then be checked.
>>>>
>>>> We also compare the configured cpu numbers against the smp reported
>>>> numbers and if the reserved + configured add up to the total number
>>>> reported.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> * Tabify on struct
>>>> * Moved prefix_push up a bit
>>>> * Replaced returns with goto out to pop prefix
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>  s390x/stsi.c        | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  s390x/unittests.cfg |  1 +
>>>>  2 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
>>>>  
>>>
>>> (...)
>>>   
>>>> +static void test_3_2_2(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	int rc;
>>>> +	/* EBCDIC for "kvm-unit" */
>>>> +	const uint8_t vm_name[] = { 0x92, 0xa5, 0x94, 0x60, 0xa4, 0x95, 0x89,
>>>> +				    0xa3 };
>>>> +	const uint8_t uuid[] = { 0x0f, 0xb8, 0x4a, 0x86, 0x72, 0x7c,
>>>> +				 0x11, 0xea, 0xbc, 0x55, 0x02, 0x42, 0xac, 0x13,
>>>> +				 0x00, 0x03 };
>>>> +	/* EBCDIC for "KVM/" */
>>>> +	const uint8_t cpi_kvm[] = { 0xd2, 0xe5, 0xd4, 0x61 };
>>>> +	const char *vm_name_ext = "kvm-unit-test";
>>>> +	struct stsi_322 *data = (void *)pagebuf;
>>>> +
>>>> +	report_prefix_push("3.2.2");
>>>> +
>>>> +	/* Is the function code available at all? */
>>>> +	if (stsi_get_fc(pagebuf) < 3) {
>>>> +		report_skip("Running under lpar, no level 3 to test.");
>>>> +		goto out;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	rc = stsi(pagebuf, 3, 2, 2);
>>>> +	report(!rc, "call");
>>>> +
>>>> +	/* For now we concentrate on KVM/QEMU */
>>>> +	if (memcmp(&data->vm[0].cpi, cpi_kvm, sizeof(cpi_kvm))) {
>>>> +		report_skip("Not running under KVM/QEMU.");
>>>> +		goto out;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	report(!memcmp(data->vm[0].uuid, uuid, sizeof(uuid)), "uuid");
>>>> +	report(data->vm[0].conf_cpus == smp_query_num_cpus(), "cpu # configured");
>>>> +	report(data->vm[0].total_cpus ==
>>>> +	       data->vm[0].reserved_cpus + data->vm[0].conf_cpus,
>>>> +	       "cpu # total == conf + reserved");
>>>> +	report(data->vm[0].standby_cpus == 0, "cpu # standby");
>>>> +	report(!memcmp(data->vm[0].name, vm_name, sizeof(data->vm[0].name)),
>>>> +	       "VM name == kvm-unit-test");
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (data->vm[0].ext_name_encoding != 2) {
>>>> +		report_skip("Extended VM names are not UTF-8.");  
>>>
>>> Do we expect this to be anything other than UTF-8?  
>>
>> With the current QEMU no.
> 
> I don't really see a reason to change this in QEMU, though; and as you
> check already whether we're running under QEMU, maybe make this a
> failure?

David has requested it and already queued the patch.
If it bothers you, you can provide a fixpatch. :-)

> 
>> When I find time to test this under z/VM (as a guest 2, no KVM) maybe.
> 
> Would it make sense to check (different) expected values for z/VM and
> QEMU, then?

I'm not sure what z/VM reports here, so I can't answer that.
But testing firmware, lpar and z/VM in addition to KVM has been proven
increasingly useful over time.

I'll add it to my low prio todo list.

> 
>>
>>>   
>>>> +		goto out;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +	report(!memcmp(data->ext_names[0], vm_name_ext, sizeof(vm_name_ext)),
>>>> +		       "ext VM name == kvm-unit-test");
>>>> +
>>>> +out:
>>>> +	report_prefix_pop();
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>  int main(void)
>>>>  {
>>>>  	report_prefix_push("stsi");
>>>>  	test_priv();
>>>>  	test_specs();
>>>>  	test_fc();
>>>> +	test_3_2_2();
>>>>  	return report_summary();
>>>>  }  
>>>
>>> (...)
>>>   
>>
>>
> 

On 31.03.20 11:35, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 03:14:56 -0400
> Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> Subcode 3.2.2 is handled by KVM/QEMU and should therefore be tested
>> a bit more thorough.
> 
> s/thorough/thoroughly/ ?

I fixed that up for now.

[...]

>> +	if (data->vm[0].ext_name_encoding != 2) {
>> +		report_skip("Extended VM names are not UTF-8.");
> 
> Do we expect this to be anything other than UTF-8?

I'm not a fan of hard-coding things that can change to other valid
values. No strong feelings though. I'll let Janosch decide :)


-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

On 3/31/20 7:24 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 31.03.20 11:35, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 03:14:56 -0400
>> Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Subcode 3.2.2 is handled by KVM/QEMU and should therefore be tested
>>> a bit more thorough.
>>
>> s/thorough/thoroughly/ ?
> 
> I fixed that up for now.

Thanks

> 
> [...]
> 
>>> +	if (data->vm[0].ext_name_encoding != 2) {
>>> +		report_skip("Extended VM names are not UTF-8.");
>>
>> Do we expect this to be anything other than UTF-8?
> 
> I'm not a fan of hard-coding things that can change to other valid
> values. No strong feelings though. I'll let Janosch decide :)
> 

I'd like to keep it as is.

On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 09:20:49 +0200
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 3/31/20 7:24 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 31.03.20 11:35, Cornelia Huck wrote:  
> >> On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 03:14:56 -0400
> >> Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>  
> >>> Subcode 3.2.2 is handled by KVM/QEMU and should therefore be tested
> >>> a bit more thorough.  
> >>
> >> s/thorough/thoroughly/ ?  
> > 
> > I fixed that up for now.  
> 
> Thanks
> 
> > 
> > [...]
> >   
> >>> +	if (data->vm[0].ext_name_encoding != 2) {
> >>> +		report_skip("Extended VM names are not UTF-8.");  
> >>
> >> Do we expect this to be anything other than UTF-8?  
> > 
> > I'm not a fan of hard-coding things that can change to other valid
> > values. No strong feelings though. I'll let Janosch decide :)
> >   
> 
> I'd like to keep it as is.
> 
> 

Fair enough.

Feel free to add my

Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>