Hi Sean,
On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 4:30 PM Sean Christopherson <sea...@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 06, 2025, Sukrut Heroorkar wrote:
> > Replace the hardcoded 0xff in test_icr() with the actual number of vcpus
> > created for the vm. This address the existing TODO and keeps the test
> > correct if it is ever run with multiple vcpus.
>
> The TODO is stale, it was resolved by commit 376bc1b458c9 ("KVM: selftests:
> Don't
> assume vcpu->id is '0' in xAPIC state test"), I/we just forgot to delete the
> comment.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Sukrut Heroorkar <hsukr...@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/xapic_state_test.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/xapic_state_test.c
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/xapic_state_test.c
> > index fdebff1165c7..4af36682503e 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/xapic_state_test.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/xapic_state_test.c
> > @@ -56,6 +56,17 @@ static void x2apic_guest_code(void)
> > } while (1);
> > }
> >
> > +static unsigned int vm_nr_vcpus(struct kvm_vm *vm)
> > +{
> > + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> > + unsigned int count = 0;
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry(vcpu, &vm->vcpus, list)
> > + count++;
> > +
> > + return count;
> > +}
> > +
> > static void ____test_icr(struct xapic_vcpu *x, uint64_t val)
> > {
> > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = x->vcpu;
> > @@ -124,7 +135,7 @@ static void test_icr(struct xapic_vcpu *x)
> > * vCPUs, not vcpu.id + 1. Arbitrarily use vector 0xff.
> > */
> > icr = APIC_INT_ASSERT | 0xff;
> > - for (i = 0; i < 0xff; i++) {
> > + for (i = 0; i < vm_nr_vcpus(vcpu->vm); i++) {
>
> This is wrong/undesirable. The original code was:
>
> for (i = vcpu->id + 1; i < 0xff; i++) {
> for (j = 0; j < 8; j++)
> __test_icr(vm, vcpu, i << (32 + 24) | APIC_INT_ASSERT
> | (j << 8));
> }
>
> I.e. the _lower_ bound was nr_vcpus+1. Regardless, as fixed by the
> aformentioned
> commit, using the number of vCPUs in any capacity is simply wrong. The stale
> comment just needs to be deleted.:
Thanks for the clarification. I will send a patch removing the stale
TODO comment.
>
> > if (i == vcpu->id)
> > continue;
> > for (j = 0; j < 8; j++)
> > --
> > 2.43.0
> >
