On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 07:16:09PM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote: > Split up the current test into several helpers that will be useful to > subsequent test cases added to the PSCI test suite. > > Signed-off-by: Oliver Upton <[email protected]> > --- > .../testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/psci_test.c | 68 ++++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/psci_test.c > b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/psci_test.c > index 8d043e12b137..90312be335da 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/psci_test.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/psci_test.c > @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ static uint64_t psci_affinity_info(uint64_t target_affinity, > return res.a0; > } > > -static void guest_main(uint64_t target_cpu) > +static void guest_test_cpu_on(uint64_t target_cpu) > { > GUEST_ASSERT(!psci_cpu_on(target_cpu, CPU_ON_ENTRY_ADDR, > CPU_ON_CONTEXT_ID)); > uint64_t target_state; > @@ -69,12 +69,10 @@ static void vcpu_power_off(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint32_t > vcpuid) > vcpu_set_mp_state(vm, vcpuid, &mp_state); > } > > -int main(void) > +static struct kvm_vm *setup_vm(void *guest_code) > { > - uint64_t target_mpidr, obs_pc, obs_x0; > struct kvm_vcpu_init init; > struct kvm_vm *vm; > - struct ucall uc; > > vm = vm_create(VM_MODE_DEFAULT, DEFAULT_GUEST_PHY_PAGES, O_RDWR); > kvm_vm_elf_load(vm, program_invocation_name); > @@ -83,31 +81,28 @@ int main(void) > vm_ioctl(vm, KVM_ARM_PREFERRED_TARGET, &init); > init.features[0] |= (1 << KVM_ARM_VCPU_PSCI_0_2); > > - aarch64_vcpu_add_default(vm, VCPU_ID_SOURCE, &init, guest_main); > - aarch64_vcpu_add_default(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET, &init, guest_main); > + aarch64_vcpu_add_default(vm, VCPU_ID_SOURCE, &init, guest_code); > + aarch64_vcpu_add_default(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET, &init, guest_code); > > - /* > - * make sure the target is already off when executing the test. > - */ > - vcpu_power_off(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET); > + return vm; > +} > > - get_reg(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET, ARM64_SYS_REG(MPIDR_EL1), &target_mpidr); > - vcpu_args_set(vm, VCPU_ID_SOURCE, 1, target_mpidr & MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK); > - vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID_SOURCE); > +static void enter_guest(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint32_t vcpuid) > +{ > + struct ucall uc; > > - switch (get_ucall(vm, VCPU_ID_SOURCE, &uc)) { > - case UCALL_DONE: > - break; > - case UCALL_ABORT: > + vcpu_run(vm, vcpuid); > + if (get_ucall(vm, vcpuid, &uc) == UCALL_ABORT) > TEST_FAIL("%s at %s:%ld", (const char *)uc.args[0], __FILE__, > uc.args[1]); > - break; > - default: > - TEST_FAIL("Unhandled ucall: %lu", uc.cmd); > - } > +} > > - get_reg(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET, ARM64_CORE_REG(regs.pc), &obs_pc); > - get_reg(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET, ARM64_CORE_REG(regs.regs[0]), &obs_x0); > +static void assert_vcpu_reset(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint32_t vcpuid) > +{ > + uint64_t obs_pc, obs_x0; > + > + get_reg(vm, vcpuid, ARM64_CORE_REG(regs.pc), &obs_pc); > + get_reg(vm, vcpuid, ARM64_CORE_REG(regs.regs[0]), &obs_x0); > > TEST_ASSERT(obs_pc == CPU_ON_ENTRY_ADDR, > "unexpected target cpu pc: %lx (expected: %lx)", > @@ -115,7 +110,34 @@ int main(void) > TEST_ASSERT(obs_x0 == CPU_ON_CONTEXT_ID, > "unexpected target context id: %lx (expected: %lx)", > obs_x0, CPU_ON_CONTEXT_ID); > +} > > +static void host_test_cpu_on(void) > +{ > + uint64_t target_mpidr; > + struct kvm_vm *vm; > + struct ucall uc; > + > + vm = setup_vm(guest_test_cpu_on); > + > + /* > + * make sure the target is already off when executing the test. > + */ > + vcpu_power_off(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET); > + > + get_reg(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET, ARM64_SYS_REG(MPIDR_EL1), &target_mpidr); > + vcpu_args_set(vm, VCPU_ID_SOURCE, 1, target_mpidr & MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK); > + enter_guest(vm, VCPU_ID_SOURCE); > + > + if (get_ucall(vm, VCPU_ID_SOURCE, &uc) != UCALL_DONE) > + TEST_FAIL("Unhandled ucall: %lu", uc.cmd); > + > + assert_vcpu_reset(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET); > kvm_vm_free(vm); > +} > + > +int main(void) > +{ > + host_test_cpu_on(); > return 0; > } > -- > 2.33.0.685.g46640cef36-goog >
Hard to read diff, but I think the refactoring comes out right. Please do this refactoring before adding the new test in the next revision, though. Anyway, ignoring the new test context, which I think is changing with the next revision Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <[email protected]> Thanks, drew _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
