Currently when set_id_regs encounters a problem checking validation of writes to feature registers it uses an immediately fatal assert to report the problem. This is not idiomatic for kselftest, and it is also not great for usability. The affected bitfield is not clearly reported and further tests do not have their results reported.
Switch to using standard kselftest result reporting for the two asserts we do, these are non-fatal asserts so allow the program to continue and the test names include the affected field. Reviewed-by: Ben Horgan <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <[email protected]> --- tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/set_id_regs.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/set_id_regs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/set_id_regs.c index 3aa8886e8b70..385e1f1c0133 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/set_id_regs.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/set_id_regs.c @@ -422,6 +422,7 @@ static u64 test_reg_set_success(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 reg, u8 shift = ftr_bits->shift; u64 mask = ftr_bits->mask; u64 val, new_val, ftr; + bool match; val = vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, reg); ftr = (val & mask) >> shift; @@ -434,7 +435,10 @@ static u64 test_reg_set_success(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 reg, vcpu_set_reg(vcpu, reg, val); new_val = vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, reg); - TEST_ASSERT_EQ(new_val, val); + match = new_val == val; + if (!match) + ksft_print_msg("%lx != %lx\n", new_val, val); + ksft_test_result(match, "%s valid write succeeded\n", ftr_bits->name); return new_val; } @@ -446,6 +450,7 @@ static void test_reg_set_fail(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 reg, u64 mask = ftr_bits->mask; u64 val, old_val, ftr; int r; + bool match; val = vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, reg); ftr = (val & mask) >> shift; @@ -462,7 +467,10 @@ static void test_reg_set_fail(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 reg, "Unexpected KVM_SET_ONE_REG error: r=%d, errno=%d", r, errno); val = vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, reg); - TEST_ASSERT_EQ(val, old_val); + match = val == old_val; + if (!match) + ksft_print_msg("%lx != %lx\n", val, old_val); + ksft_test_result(match, "%s invalid write rejected\n", ftr_bits->name); } static u64 test_reg_vals[KVM_ARM_FEATURE_ID_RANGE_SIZE]; @@ -502,7 +510,11 @@ static void test_vm_ftr_id_regs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool aarch64_only) for (int j = 0; ftr_bits[j].type != FTR_END; j++) { /* Skip aarch32 reg on aarch64 only system, since they are RAZ/WI. */ if (aarch64_only && sys_reg_CRm(reg_id) < 4) { - ksft_test_result_skip("%s on AARCH64 only system\n", + ksft_print_msg("%s on AARCH64 only system\n", + ftr_bits[j].name); + ksft_test_result_skip("%s invalid write rejected\n", + ftr_bits[j].name); + ksft_test_result_skip("%s valid write succeeded\n", ftr_bits[j].name); continue; } @@ -514,8 +526,6 @@ static void test_vm_ftr_id_regs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool aarch64_only) test_reg_vals[idx] = test_reg_set_success(vcpu, reg, &ftr_bits[j]); - - ksft_test_result_pass("%s\n", ftr_bits[j].name); } } } @@ -882,7 +892,7 @@ int main(void) ID_REG_RESET_UNCHANGED_TEST; for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(test_regs); i++) for (j = 0; test_regs[i].ftr_bits[j].type != FTR_END; j++) - test_cnt++; + test_cnt += 2; ksft_set_plan(test_cnt); -- 2.47.3
