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 <[email protected]>
> ---
> 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.:
> if (i == vcpu->id)
> continue;
> for (j = 0; j < 8; j++)
> --
> 2.43.0
>
