[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZMIs+6w4vF3X27L7@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2023 01:38:19 -0700
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
CC: "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"jgg@...dia.com" <jgg@...dia.com>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
"baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
"cohuck@...hat.com" <cohuck@...hat.com>,
"eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com" <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
"chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com" <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>,
"yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com" <yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com>,
"peterx@...hat.com" <peterx@...hat.com>,
"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com"
<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
"lulu@...hat.com" <lulu@...hat.com>,
"suravee.suthikulpanit@....com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
"Duan, Zhenzhong" <zhenzhong.duan@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] iommufd/selftest: Add coverage for
IOMMU_GET_HW_INFO ioctl
Hi Kevin,
On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 08:14:45AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
> > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 7:00 PM
> >
> > --- a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/device.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/device.c
> > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> >
> > #include "io_pagetable.h"
> > #include "iommufd_private.h"
> > +#include "iommufd_test.h"
>
> Is it stale?
Ah, should've dropped it.
> > @@ -211,7 +213,7 @@ FIXTURE_SETUP(iommufd_ioas)
> >
> > for (i = 0; i != variant->mock_domains; i++) {
> > test_cmd_mock_domain(self->ioas_id, &self->stdev_id,
> > - &self->hwpt_id, NULL);
> > + &self->hwpt_id, &self->device_id);
> > self->base_iova = MOCK_APERTURE_START;
> > }
> > }
> > @@ -290,6 +292,19 @@ TEST_F(iommufd_ioas, ioas_area_auto_destroy)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +TEST_F(iommufd_ioas, get_hw_info)
> > +{
> > + struct iommu_test_hw_info info;
> > +
> > + if (self->device_id) {
> > + test_cmd_get_hw_info(self->device_id, sizeof(info), &info);
> > + assert(info.test_reg ==
> > IOMMU_HW_INFO_SELFTEST_REGVAL);
> > + } else {
> > + test_err_get_hw_info(ENOENT, self->device_id,
> > + sizeof(info), &info);
> > + }
>
> If self->device_id is invalid it should be reported right after
> test_cmd_mock_domain()?
A device_id is created per mock_domain. And mock_domain is a
variant that could be 0, so a device_id being 0 could be a
normal case. Here the invalid test is for negative coverage.
Thanks!
Nic
Powered by blists - more mailing lists