Typo in subject: validatity -> validity On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 07:50:03PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > 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]>
One NIT below and typo noted above, with those addressed LGTM so: Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <[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); Same pattern (I wonder, not for this series, but perhaps a follow up whether this could be generalised?) > > 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); > NIT: There's a: TEST_ASSERT(r < 0 && errno == EINVAL, "Unexpected KVM_SET_ONE_REG error: r=%d, errno=%d", r, errno); Above, do we want to make that non-fatal too? > 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 > > -- Cheers, Lorenzo
