selftests: kvm: Introduce the mem_slot_test test
v2 cover selftests: kvm: Introduce the mem_slot_test test
This series introduces a new KVM selftest (mem_slot_test) that goal is to verify memory slots can be added up to the maximum allowed. An extra slot is attempted which should occur on error.
The patch 01 is needed so that the VM fd can be accessed from the test code (for the ioctl call attempting to add an extra slot).
I ran the test successfully on x86_64, aarch64, and s390x. This is why it is enabled to build on those arches.
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/[email protected]
Changes v1 -> v2:
- Rebased to queue
- vm_get_fd() returns int instead of unsigned int (patch 01) [drjones]
- Removed MEM_REG_FLAGS and GUEST_VM_MODE defines [drjones]
- Replaced DEBUG() with pr_info() [drjones]
- Calculate number of guest pages with vm_calc_num_guest_pages()
[drjones]
- Using memory region of 1 MB sized (matches mininum needed
for s390x)
- Removed the increment of guest_addr after the loop [drjones]
- Added assert for the errno when adding a slot beyond-the-limit [drjones]
- Prefer KVM_MEM_READONLY flag but on s390x it switch to KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES,
so ensure the coverage of both flags. Also somewhat tests the KVM_CAP_READONLY_MEM capability check [drjones]
- Moved the test logic to test_add_max_slots(), this allows to more easily add new cases in the "suite".
Wainer dos Santos Moschetta (2):
selftests: kvm: Add vm_get_fd() in kvm_util
selftests: kvm: Add mem_slot_test test
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore | 1 + tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile | 3 + .../testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h | 1 + tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c | 5 ++ tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++++ 5 files changed, 95 insertions(+) create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c
Signature · 1 line
2.17.2
PATCH v2 1/2 selftests: kvm: Add vm_get_fd() in kvm_util
Introduces the vm_get_fd() function in kvm_util which returns the VM file descriptor.
--- tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h | 1 + tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c | 5 +++++ 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h +1 -0
@@ -254,6 +254,7 @@ bool vm_is_unrestricted_guest(struct kvm_vm *vm);unsigned int vm_get_page_size (struct kvm_vm *vm);unsigned int vm_get_page_shift (struct kvm_vm *vm);unsigned int vm_get_max_gfn (struct kvm_vm *vm); +int vm_get_fd (struct kvm_vm *vm);unsigned int vm_calc_num_guest_pages (enum vm_guest_mode mode,size_t size);unsigned int vm_num_host_pages (enum vm_guest_mode mode,unsigned int num_guest_pages);
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c +5 -0
@@ -1734,6 +1734,11 @@ unsigned int vm_get_max_gfn(struct kvm_vm *vm)return vm->max_gfn; } +int vm_get_fd (struct kvm_vm *vm) +{ +return vm->fd; +} + static unsigned int vm_calc_num_pages(unsigned int num_pages, unsigned int page_shift, unsigned int new_page_shift,
Signature · 1 line
2.17.2
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] selftests: kvm: Add vm_get_fd() in kvm_util
Quoted 40 lines · Wainer dos Santos Moschetta
Introduces the
vm_get_fd()function inkvm_utilwhich returns the VM file descriptor.Signed-off-by Wainer dos Santos Moschetta <[email protected]>--- tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h | 1 + tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c | 5 +++++ 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h +1
-0@@ -254,6 +254,7 @@ bool vm_is_unrestricted_guest(struct kvm_vm *vm);unsigned int vm_get_page_size (struct kvm_vm *vm);unsigned int vm_get_page_shift (struct kvm_vm *vm);unsigned int vm_get_max_gfn (struct kvm_vm *vm); +int vm_get_fd (struct kvm_vm *vm);unsigned int vm_calc_num_guest_pages (enum vm_guest_mode mode,size_t size);unsigned int vm_num_host_pages (enum vm_guest_mode mode,unsigned int num_guest_pages);tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c +5
-0@@ -1734,6 +1734,11 @@ unsigned int vm_get_max_gfn(struct kvm_vm *vm)return vm->max_gfn; } +int vm_get_fd (struct kvm_vm *vm) +{ +return vm->fd; +} + static unsigned int vm_calc_num_pages(unsigned int num_pages, unsigned int page_shift, unsigned int new_page_shift,Signature · 1 line
2.17.2
PATCH v2 2/2 selftests: kvm: Add mem_slot_test test
In reply to Wainer dos Santos MoschettaThis patch introduces the mem_slot_test test which checks an VM can have added memory slots up to the limit defined in KVM_CAP_NR_MEMSLOTS. Then attempt to add one more slot to verify it fails as expected.
--- tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore | 1 + tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile | 3 + tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 89 insertions(+) create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore +1 -0
@@ -22,3 +22,4 @@ /dirty_log_test /kvm_create_max_vcpus /steal_time +/mem_slot_test
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile +3 -0
@@ -33,12 +33,14 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += demand_paging_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += dirty_log_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += kvm_create_max_vcpus TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += steal_time +TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += mem_slot_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += clear_dirty_log_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += demand_paging_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += dirty_log_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += kvm_create_max_vcpus TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += steal_time +TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += mem_slot_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x = s390x/memop TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += s390x/resets
@@ -46,6 +48,7 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += s390x/sync_regs_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += demand_paging_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += dirty_log_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += kvm_create_max_vcpus +TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += mem_slot_test TEST_GEN_PROGS += $(TEST_GEN_PROGS_$(UNAME_M)) LIBKVM += $(LIBKVM_$(UNAME_M))
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c new file +85 -0
85 lines not on this page · raw message
Signature · 1 line
2.17.2
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] selftests: kvm: Add mem_slot_test test
Quoted 29 lines · Wainer dos Santos Moschetta
This patch introduces the
mem_slot_testtest which checks an VM can have added memory slots up to the limit defined inKVM_CAP_NR_MEMSLOTS. Then attempt to add one more slot to verify it fails as expected.Signed-off-by Wainer dos Santos Moschetta <[email protected]>--- tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore | 1 + tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile | 3 + tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 89 insertions(+) create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.ctools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore +1
-0@@ -22,3 +22,4 @@ /dirty_log_test /kvm_create_max_vcpus /steal_time +/mem_slot_testtools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile +0
-0@@ -33,12 +33,14 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += demand_paging_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += dirty_log_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += kvm_create_max_vcpus
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += demand_paging_test · line 44
Quoted 10 lines
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile +2
-0TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += steal_time +TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += mem_slot_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += clear_dirty_log_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += demand_paging_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += dirty_log_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += kvm_create_max_vcpus TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += steal_time +TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += mem_slot_test
kvm selftests has a bad case of OCD when it comes to lists of tests. In the .gitignore and the Makefile we keep our tests in alphabetical order. Maybe we should stop, because it's a bit annoying to maintain, but my personal OCD won't allow it to be on my watch. Please fix the above three lists.
Quoted 52 lines
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile +1
-0TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x = s390x/memop TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += s390x/resets@@ -46,6 +48,7 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += s390x/sync_regs_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += demand_paging_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += dirty_log_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += kvm_create_max_vcpus +TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += mem_slot_test TEST_GEN_PROGS += $(TEST_GEN_PROGS_$(UNAME_M)) LIBKVM += $(LIBKVM_$(UNAME_M))tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c new file +36
-0@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only +/* +* mem_slot_test +* +* Copyright (C) 2020, Red Hat, Inc. +* +* Test suite for memory region operations. +*/ +#define _GNU_SOURCE/* for program_invocation_short_name */ +#include <linux/kvm.h> +#include <sys/mman.h> + +#include "test_util.h" +#include "kvm_util.h" + +/* +* Test it can be added memory slots up to KVM_CAP_NR_MEMSLOTS, then any +* tentative to add further slots should fail. +*/ +static void test_add_max_slots (void ) +{ +struct kvm_vm *vm; +uint32_t max_mem_slots; +uint32_t slot; +uint64_t mem_reg_npages; +uint64_t mem_reg_size; +uint32_t mem_reg_flags; +uint64_t guest_addr; +int ret; + + max_mem_slots =kvm_check_cap (KVM_CAP_NR_MEMSLOTS ); +TEST_ASSERT (max_mem_slots >0 , +"KVM_CAP_NR_MEMSLOTS should be greater than 0" ); +pr_info ("Allowed number of memory slots: %i\n" , max_mem_slots); + + vm =vm_create (VM_MODE_DEFAULT ,0 ,O_RDWR );
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c line 46
Quoted 10 lines
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c new file +10
-0+ +/* +* Uses 1MB sized/aligned memory region since this is the minimal +* required on s390x. +*/ + mem_reg_size =0x100000 ; + mem_reg_npages =vm_calc_num_guest_pages (VM_MODE_DEFAULT , mem_reg_size); + + mem_reg_flags =kvm_check_cap (KVM_CAP_READONLY_MEM ) ?KVM_MEM_READONLY : +KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES ;
I still don't see why we're setting a flag at all, and now we're setting different flags depending on what's available, so the test isn't the same for every environment. I would just have mem->flags = 0 for this test.
Quoted 7 lines
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c new file +7
-0+ + guest_addr =0x0 ; + +/* Check it can be added memory slots up to the maximum allowed */ +pr_info ("Adding slots 0..%i, each memory region with %ldK size\n" , + (max_mem_slots -1 ), mem_reg_size >>10 ); +for (slot =0 ; slot < max_mem_slots; slot++) {
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c line 63
Quoted 10 lines
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c new file +10
-0+vm_userspace_mem_region_add (vm,VM_MEM_SRC_ANONYMOUS , + guest_addr, slot, mem_reg_npages, + mem_reg_flags); + guest_addr += mem_reg_size; + } + +/* Check it cannot be added memory slots beyond the limit */ +void *mem =mmap (NULL , mem_reg_size,PROT_READ |PROT_WRITE , +MAP_PRIVATE |MAP_ANONYMOUS ,-1 ,0 ); +TEST_ASSERT (mem !=NULL ,"Failed to mmap() host" );
This should be testing mem != MAP_FAILED
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c line 71
Quoted 8 lines
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c new file +8
-0+ +struct kvm_userspace_memory_region kvm_region = { + .slot = slot, + .flags = mem_reg_flags, + .guest_phys_addr = guest_addr, + .memory_size = mem_reg_size, + .userspace_addr = (uint64_t ) mem, + };
Declaring kvm_region in the middle of the block. I don't really care myself, but it's inconsistent with all the other variables which are declared at the top.
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c line 75
Quoted 4 lines
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c new file +4
-0+ + ret =ioctl (vm_get_fd (vm),KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION , &kvm_region); +TEST_ASSERT (ret ==-1 ,"Adding one more memory slot should fail" ); +TEST_ASSERT (errno ==EINVAL ,"Should return EINVAL errno" );
Please make the second assert message more specific. Or better would be to combine the asserts
TEST_ASSERT(ret == -1 && errno == EINVAL, "Adding one more memory slot should fail with EINVAL");
Quoted 13 lines
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c new file +10
-0+ +munmap (mem, mem_reg_size); +kvm_vm_free (vm); +} + +int main (int argc,char *argv[]) +{ +test_add_max_slots (); +return 0 ; +}Signature · 1 line
2.17.2
Thanks,
drew
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] selftests: kvm: Add mem_slot_test test
Quoted 33 lines · Andrew Jones
Quoted 32 lines · Wainer dos Santos Moschetta
This patch introduces the
mem_slot_testtest which checks an VM can have added memory slots up to the limit defined inKVM_CAP_NR_MEMSLOTS. Then attempt to add one more slot to verify it fails as expected.Signed-off-by Wainer dos Santos Moschetta <[email protected]>--- tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore | 1 + tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile | 3 + tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 89 insertions(+)create mode 100644
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.ctools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore +1
-0@@ -22,3 +22,4 @@ /dirty_log_test /kvm_create_max_vcpus /steal_time +/mem_slot_testtools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile +1
-0@@ -33,12 +33,14 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += demand_paging_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += dirty_log_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += kvm_create_max_vcpus TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += steal_time +TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += mem_slot_test
Quoted 12 lines
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += demand_paging_test · line 44
Quoted 7 lines
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile +1
-0TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += clear_dirty_log_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += demand_paging_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += dirty_log_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += kvm_create_max_vcpus TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += steal_time +TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += mem_slot_testkvm selftests has a bad case of OCD when it comes to lists of tests. In the .gitignore and the
Makefilewe keep our tests in alphabetical order. Maybe we should stop, because it's a bit annoying to maintain, but my personal OCD won't allow it to be on my watch. Please fix the above three lists.
I will fix it on v3.
Kind of related... has ever been discussed a naming convention for kvm selftests? It would allow the use of regex on both .gitignore and Makefile...and bye-bye those sorted lists.
Quoted 59 lines
Quoted 59 lines
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile +1
-0TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x = s390x/memop TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += s390x/resets@@ -46,6 +48,7 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += s390x/sync_regs_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += demand_paging_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += dirty_log_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += kvm_create_max_vcpus +TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += mem_slot_test TEST_GEN_PROGS += $(TEST_GEN_PROGS_$(UNAME_M)) LIBKVM += $(LIBKVM_$(UNAME_M))tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c new file +42
-0@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only +/* +* mem_slot_test +* +* Copyright (C) 2020, Red Hat, Inc. +* +* Test suite for memory region operations. +*/ +#define _GNU_SOURCE/* for program_invocation_short_name */ +#include <linux/kvm.h> +#include <sys/mman.h> + +#include "test_util.h" +#include "kvm_util.h" + +/* +* Test it can be added memory slots up to KVM_CAP_NR_MEMSLOTS, then any +* tentative to add further slots should fail. +*/ +static void test_add_max_slots (void ) +{ +struct kvm_vm *vm; +uint32_t max_mem_slots; +uint32_t slot; +uint64_t mem_reg_npages; +uint64_t mem_reg_size; +uint32_t mem_reg_flags; +uint64_t guest_addr; +int ret; + + max_mem_slots =kvm_check_cap (KVM_CAP_NR_MEMSLOTS ); +TEST_ASSERT (max_mem_slots >0 , +"KVM_CAP_NR_MEMSLOTS should be greater than 0" ); +pr_info ("Allowed number of memory slots: %i\n" , max_mem_slots); + + vm =vm_create (VM_MODE_DEFAULT ,0 ,O_RDWR ); + +/* +* Uses 1MB sized/aligned memory region since this is the minimal +* required on s390x. +*/ + mem_reg_size =0x100000 ;
Quoted 8 lines
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c line 46
Quoted 4 lines
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c new file +4
-0+ mem_reg_npages =vm_calc_num_guest_pages (VM_MODE_DEFAULT , mem_reg_size); + + mem_reg_flags =kvm_check_cap (KVM_CAP_READONLY_MEM ) ?KVM_MEM_READONLY : +KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES ;I still don't see why we're setting a flag at all, and now we're setting different flags depending on what's available, so the test isn't the same for every environment. I would just have
mem->flags= 0 for this test.
I thought I had to set a memory flag always. If mem->flags = 0 works across the arches, then I change this on v3.
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 11 lines
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c new file +10
-0+ + guest_addr =0x0 ; + +/* Check it can be added memory slots up to the maximum allowed */ +pr_info ("Adding slots 0..%i, each memory region with %ldK size\n" , + (max_mem_slots -1 ), mem_reg_size >>10 ); +for (slot =0 ; slot < max_mem_slots; slot++) { +vm_userspace_mem_region_add (vm,VM_MEM_SRC_ANONYMOUS , + guest_addr, slot, mem_reg_npages, + mem_reg_flags);
Quoted 8 lines
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c line 63
Quoted 7 lines
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c new file +7
-0+ guest_addr += mem_reg_size; + } + +/* Check it cannot be added memory slots beyond the limit */ +void *mem =mmap (NULL , mem_reg_size,PROT_READ |PROT_WRITE , +MAP_PRIVATE |MAP_ANONYMOUS ,-1 ,0 ); +TEST_ASSERT (mem !=NULL ,"Failed to mmap() host" );This should be testing mem !=
MAP_FAILED
Ok.
Quoted 12 lines
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c line 71
Quoted 9 lines
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c new file +8
-0+ +struct kvm_userspace_memory_region kvm_region = { + .slot = slot, + .flags = mem_reg_flags, + .guest_phys_addr = guest_addr, + .memory_size = mem_reg_size, + .userspace_addr = (uint64_t ) mem, + };Declaring
kvm_regionin the middle of the block. I don't really care myself, but it's inconsistent with all the other variables which are declared at the top.
Makes sense.
Quoted 9 lines
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c line 75
Quoted 5 lines
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c new file +4
-0+ + ret =ioctl (vm_get_fd (vm),KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION , &kvm_region); +TEST_ASSERT (ret ==-1 ,"Adding one more memory slot should fail" ); +TEST_ASSERT (errno ==EINVAL ,"Should return EINVAL errno" );Please make the second assert message more specific. Or better would be to combine the asserts
TEST_ASSERT(ret == -1 && errno == EINVAL, "Adding one more memory slot should fail with EINVAL");
Yeah, I was unsure about and'ing the checks. I will change it on v3.
Thanks!
Wainer
Quoted 16 lines
Quoted 14 lines
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c new file +10
-0+ +munmap (mem, mem_reg_size); +kvm_vm_free (vm); +} + +int main (int argc,char *argv[]) +{ +test_add_max_slots (); +return 0 ; +}Signature · 1 line
2.17.2Thanks,
drew
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] selftests: kvm: Add mem_slot_test test
Quoted 46 lines · Wainer dos Santos Moschetta
Quoted 35 lines · Andrew Jones
Quoted 34 lines · Wainer dos Santos Moschetta
This patch introduces the
mem_slot_testtest which checks an VM can have added memory slots up to the limit defined inKVM_CAP_NR_MEMSLOTS. Then attempt to add one more slot to verify it fails as expected.Signed-off-by Wainer dos Santos Moschetta <[email protected]>--- tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore | 1 + tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile | 3 + tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 89 insertions(+)create mode 100644
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/mem_slot_test.ctools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore +1
-0@@ -22,3 +22,4 @@ /dirty_log_test /kvm_create_max_vcpus /steal_time +/mem_slot_testtools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile +1
-0@@ -33,12 +33,14 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += demand_paging_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += dirty_log_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += kvm_create_max_vcpus TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += steal_time +TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += mem_slot_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += clear_dirty_log_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += demand_paging_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += dirty_log_testQuoted 8 lines
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += demand_paging_test · line 43
Quoted 3 lines
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile +1
-0TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += kvm_create_max_vcpus TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += steal_time +TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += mem_slot_testkvm selftests has a bad case of OCD when it comes to lists of tests. In the .gitignore and the
Makefilewe keep our tests in alphabetical order. Maybe we should stop, because it's a bit annoying to maintain, but my personal OCD won't allow it to be on my watch. Please fix the above three lists.
Quoted 5 lines
I will fix it on v3.
Kind of related... has ever been discussed a naming convention for kvm selftests? It would allow the use of regex on both .gitignore and Makefile...and bye-bye those sorted lists.
It's never been discussed that I know of. Feel free to send an RFC if you'd like to kick off the discussion :-)
Thanks,
drew