[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9423ba89-b10e-5e6e-3cc8-8088f3088233@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 13:30:31 +0200
From: Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] KVM selftests for s390x
On 20/05/2019 13.20, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 16/05/19 13:12, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> This patch series enables the KVM selftests for s390x. As a first
>> test, the sync_regs from x86 has been adapted to s390x.
>>
>> Please note that the ucall() interface is not used yet - since
>> s390x neither has PIO nor MMIO, this needs some more work first
>> before it becomes usable (we likely should use a DIAG hypercall
>> here, which is what the sync_reg test is currently using, too...).
>
> No objections at all, though it would be like to have ucall plumbed in
> from the beginning.
I'm still looking at the ucall interface ... what I don't quite get yet
is the question why the ucall_type there is selectable during runtime?
Are there plans to have test that could either use UCALL_PIO or
UCALL_MMIO? If not, what about moving ucall_init() and ucall() to
architecture specific code in tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/
and tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64 instead, and to remove the
ucall_type stuff again (so that x86 is hard-wired to PIO and aarch64
is hard-wired to MMIO)? ... then I could add a DIAG-based ucall
on s390x more easily, I think.
Thomas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists