| Message ID | 62cce91351f00f80cb1c7701906e2d8cd3301ec1.1719918148.git.oleksii.kurochko@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | RISCV basic exception handling implementation | expand |
On 02.07.2024 13:23, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: > Signed-off-by: Oleksii Kurochko <oleksii.kurochko@gmail.com> > Acked-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com> > --- > xen/arch/riscv/setup.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/xen/arch/riscv/setup.c b/xen/arch/riscv/setup.c > index a6a29a1508..4f06203b46 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/riscv/setup.c > +++ b/xen/arch/riscv/setup.c > @@ -19,6 +19,20 @@ void arch_get_xen_caps(xen_capabilities_info_t *info) > unsigned char __initdata cpu0_boot_stack[STACK_SIZE] > __aligned(STACK_SIZE); > > +static void test_run_in_exception(const struct cpu_user_regs *regs) > +{ > + printk("If you see this message, "); > + printk("run_in_exception_handler is most likely working\n"); > +} > + > +static void test_macros_from_bug_h(void) > +{ > + run_in_exception_handler(test_run_in_exception); > + WARN(); > + printk("If you see this message, "); > + printk("WARN is most likely working\n"); > +} While for the moment this may be okay, in the longer run WARN() will cause quite a bit of output that you don't want on every boot. The further plans here will want mentioning in the description. Additionally as part of re-basing I think you would have wanted to put this under the (relatively new) SELF_TESTS Kconfig control. Jan > @@ -26,6 +40,8 @@ void __init noreturn start_xen(unsigned long bootcpu_id, > > trap_init(); > > + test_macros_from_bug_h(); > + > printk("All set up\n"); > > for ( ;; )
On 10.07.2024 12:06, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 02.07.2024 13:23, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Oleksii Kurochko <oleksii.kurochko@gmail.com> >> Acked-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com> >> --- >> xen/arch/riscv/setup.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/xen/arch/riscv/setup.c b/xen/arch/riscv/setup.c >> index a6a29a1508..4f06203b46 100644 >> --- a/xen/arch/riscv/setup.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/riscv/setup.c >> @@ -19,6 +19,20 @@ void arch_get_xen_caps(xen_capabilities_info_t *info) >> unsigned char __initdata cpu0_boot_stack[STACK_SIZE] >> __aligned(STACK_SIZE); >> >> +static void test_run_in_exception(const struct cpu_user_regs *regs) >> +{ >> + printk("If you see this message, "); >> + printk("run_in_exception_handler is most likely working\n"); >> +} >> + >> +static void test_macros_from_bug_h(void) >> +{ >> + run_in_exception_handler(test_run_in_exception); >> + WARN(); >> + printk("If you see this message, "); >> + printk("WARN is most likely working\n"); >> +} > > While for the moment this may be okay, in the longer run WARN() will cause > quite a bit of output that you don't want on every boot. The further plans > here will want mentioning in the description. > > Additionally as part of re-basing I think you would have wanted to put this > under the (relatively new) SELF_TESTS Kconfig control. Oh, and: Is it possible there's a word ("exception"?) missing from the title? Jan
On Wed, 2024-07-10 at 12:07 +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 10.07.2024 12:06, Jan Beulich wrote: > > On 02.07.2024 13:23, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Oleksii Kurochko <oleksii.kurochko@gmail.com> > > > Acked-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com> > > > --- > > > xen/arch/riscv/setup.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/xen/arch/riscv/setup.c b/xen/arch/riscv/setup.c > > > index a6a29a1508..4f06203b46 100644 > > > --- a/xen/arch/riscv/setup.c > > > +++ b/xen/arch/riscv/setup.c > > > @@ -19,6 +19,20 @@ void arch_get_xen_caps(xen_capabilities_info_t > > > *info) > > > unsigned char __initdata cpu0_boot_stack[STACK_SIZE] > > > __aligned(STACK_SIZE); > > > > > > +static void test_run_in_exception(const struct cpu_user_regs > > > *regs) > > > +{ > > > + printk("If you see this message, "); > > > + printk("run_in_exception_handler is most likely working\n"); > > > +} > > > + > > > +static void test_macros_from_bug_h(void) > > > +{ > > > + run_in_exception_handler(test_run_in_exception); > > > + WARN(); > > > + printk("If you see this message, "); > > > + printk("WARN is most likely working\n"); > > > +} > > > > While for the moment this may be okay, in the longer run WARN() > > will cause > > quite a bit of output that you don't want on every boot. The > > further plans > > here will want mentioning in the description. > > > > Additionally as part of re-basing I think you would have wanted to > > put this > > under the (relatively new) SELF_TESTS Kconfig control. I will consider SELF_TESTS Kconfig, there is not a lot of sense to print that every boot. > > Oh, and: Is it possible there's a word ("exception"?) missing from > the title? Yes, I missed that. I will update the title to: " test basic exception handling stuff ". Thanks. ~ Oleksii
diff --git a/xen/arch/riscv/setup.c b/xen/arch/riscv/setup.c index a6a29a1508..4f06203b46 100644 --- a/xen/arch/riscv/setup.c +++ b/xen/arch/riscv/setup.c @@ -19,6 +19,20 @@ void arch_get_xen_caps(xen_capabilities_info_t *info) unsigned char __initdata cpu0_boot_stack[STACK_SIZE] __aligned(STACK_SIZE); +static void test_run_in_exception(const struct cpu_user_regs *regs) +{ + printk("If you see this message, "); + printk("run_in_exception_handler is most likely working\n"); +} + +static void test_macros_from_bug_h(void) +{ + run_in_exception_handler(test_run_in_exception); + WARN(); + printk("If you see this message, "); + printk("WARN is most likely working\n"); +} + void __init noreturn start_xen(unsigned long bootcpu_id, paddr_t dtb_addr) { @@ -26,6 +40,8 @@ void __init noreturn start_xen(unsigned long bootcpu_id, trap_init(); + test_macros_from_bug_h(); + printk("All set up\n"); for ( ;; )