On 5/28/25 11:55 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11.13, Janosch Frank wrote:
Diag10 isn't supported under either of these environments so let's
make sure that the test bails out accordingly.
Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
s390x/diag10.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
s390x/unittests.cfg | 1 +
2 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
diff --git a/s390x/diag10.c b/s390x/diag10.c
index 579a7a5d..00725f58 100644
--- a/s390x/diag10.c
+++ b/s390x/diag10.c
@@ -9,6 +9,8 @@
*/
#include <libcflat.h>
+#include <uv.h>
+#include <hardware.h>
#include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
#include <asm/interrupt.h>
#include <asm/page.h>
@@ -95,8 +97,21 @@ static void test_priv(void)
int main(void)
{
report_prefix_push("diag10");
+
+ if (host_is_tcg()) {
+ report_skip("Test unsupported under TCG");
+ goto out;
+ }
+ if (uv_os_is_guest()) {
+ report_skip("Test unsupported under PV");
+ goto out;
+ }
+
test_prefix();
test_params();
test_priv();
Would it make sense to run test_priv() at least for TCG/PV, too?
Could do but I think such tests should go into a general diag test.
The KVM code tests priv before checking the subcode and going into the
specific handler. So if the priv test on diag44 succeeds, then it should
succeed on any other diag even if it's not implemented.
Under PV we'd be testing HW and/or FW instead of QEMU/KVM.
