Hi Li,
On 10/8/19 5:04 PM, Li Qiang wrote:
> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>> 于
> 2019年10月7日周一 下午11:20写道：
>
> We have been restricting our fw_cfg tests to the PC machine,
> which is a little-endian architecture.
> The fw_cfg device is also used on the SPARC and PowerPC
> architectures, which can run in big-endian configuration.
>
> Since we want to be sure our device does not regress
> regardless the endianess used, enable this test one
> these targets.
>
> The NUMA selector is X86 specific, restrict it to this arch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <address@hidden
> <mailto:address@hidden>>
> ---
> v2: test ppc32 too (lvivier)
> ---
> tests/Makefile.include | 2 ++
> tests/fw_cfg-test.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/Makefile.include b/tests/Makefile.include
> index 3543451ed3..4ae3d5140a 100644
> --- a/tests/Makefile.include
> +++ b/tests/Makefile.include
> @@ -226,6 +226,7 @@ check-qtest-ppc-y += tests/prom-env-test$(EXESUF)
> check-qtest-ppc-y += tests/drive_del-test$(EXESUF)
> check-qtest-ppc-y += tests/boot-serial-test$(EXESUF)
> check-qtest-ppc-$(CONFIG_M48T59) += tests/m48t59-test$(EXESUF)
> +check-qtest-ppc-y += tests/fw_cfg-test$(EXESUF)
>
> check-qtest-ppc64-y += $(check-qtest-ppc-y)
> check-qtest-ppc64-$(CONFIG_PSERIES) += tests/device-plug-test$(EXESUF)
> @@ -250,6 +251,7 @@ check-qtest-sh4eb-$(CONFIG_ISA_TESTDEV) =
> tests/endianness-test$(EXESUF)
> check-qtest-sparc-y += tests/prom-env-test$(EXESUF)
> check-qtest-sparc-y += tests/m48t59-test$(EXESUF)
> check-qtest-sparc-y += tests/boot-serial-test$(EXESUF)
> +check-qtest-sparc-y += tests/fw_cfg-test$(EXESUF)
>
> check-qtest-sparc64-$(CONFIG_ISA_TESTDEV) =
> tests/endianness-test$(EXESUF)
> check-qtest-sparc64-y += tests/prom-env-test$(EXESUF)
> diff --git a/tests/fw_cfg-test.c b/tests/fw_cfg-test.c
> index 35af0de7e6..1250e87097 100644
> --- a/tests/fw_cfg-test.c
> +++ b/tests/fw_cfg-test.c
> @@ -210,13 +210,30 @@ static void test_fw_cfg_splash_time(const void
> *opaque)
>
> int main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
> - QTestCtx ctx;
> - int ret;
> + const char *arch = qtest_get_arch();
> + bool has_numa = false;
> + QTestCtx ctx = {};
> + int ret = 0;
>
> g_test_init(&argc, &argv, NULL);
>
> - ctx.machine_name = "pc";
> - ctx.fw_cfg = pc_fw_cfg_init();
> + if (g_str_equal(arch, "i386") || g_str_equal(arch, "x86_64")) {
> + has_numa = true;
> + ctx.machine_name = "pc";
> + ctx.fw_cfg = pc_fw_cfg_init();
> + } else if (g_str_equal(arch, "sparc")) {
> + ctx.machine_name = "SS-5";
> + ctx.fw_cfg = mm_fw_cfg_init(0xd00000510ULL);
> + } else if (g_str_equal(arch, "ppc") || g_str_equal(arch,
> "ppc64")) {
> + /*
> + * The mac99 machine is different for 32/64-bit target:
> + *
> + * ppc(32): the G4 which can be either little or big endian,
> + * ppc64: the G5 (970FX) is only big-endian.
> + */
> + ctx.machine_name = "mac99";
> + ctx.fw_cfg = mm_fw_cfg_init(0xf0000510);
> + }
>
> qtest_add_data_func("fw_cfg/signature", &ctx,
> test_fw_cfg_signature);
> qtest_add_data_func("fw_cfg/id", &ctx, test_fw_cfg_id);
> @@ -231,14 +248,18 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> qtest_add_func("fw_cfg/boot_device", test_fw_cfg_boot_device);
> #endif
> qtest_add_data_func("fw_cfg/max_cpus", &ctx,
> test_fw_cfg_max_cpus);
> - qtest_add_data_func("fw_cfg/numa", &ctx, test_fw_cfg_numa);
> qtest_add_data_func("fw_cfg/boot_menu", &ctx,
> test_fw_cfg_boot_menu);
> qtest_add_data_func("fw_cfg/reboot_timeout", &ctx,
> test_fw_cfg_reboot_timeout);
> qtest_add_data_func("fw_cfg/splash_time", &ctx,
> test_fw_cfg_splash_time);
>
> - ret = g_test_run();
> + if (has_numa) {
> + qtest_add_data_func("fw_cfg/numa", &ctx, test_fw_cfg_numa);
> + }
>
> + if (ctx.machine_name) {
> + ret = g_test_run();
> + }
>
>
> I think we can omit this if statement. In which case the
> ctx.machine_name will be NULL?
Here I thought about the PPC64 tests inheriting the PPC32 ones, and
maybe someone update the tests/Makefile.include and this test will run
on unexpected architectures.
Sorry, I don't get your point here(PPC64 tests inheriting the PPC32),
could you please explain this more?
So if the machine is NULL (another arch) we
IIUC the "-M" option must has an argument, maybe?
Thanks,
Li Qiang
don't crash and return successfully, so the testsuite continue.
I might add a comment such:
if (ctx.machine_name) {
/* Only run whitelisted architecture. */
ret = g_test_run();
}
But maybe it is simpler to do at the beginning of main():
if (g_str_equal(arch, "i386") || g_str_equal(arch, "x86_64")) {
...
ctx.fw_cfg = mm_fw_cfg_init(0xf0000510);
} else {
return 0;
}
What do you think?
Thanks for reviewing the whole series :)
> Thanks,
> Li Qiang
>
> g_free(ctx.fw_cfg);
>
> return ret;
> --
> 2.21.0
>