| Message ID | 20221004093131.40392-1-thuth@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Use TAP in some more KVM selftests | expand |
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022, Thomas Huth wrote: > Many KVM selftests are completely silent. This has the disadvantage > for the users that they do not know what's going on here. For example, > some time ago, a tester asked me how to know whether a certain new > sub-test has been added to one of the s390x test binaries or not (which > he didn't compile on his own), which is hard to judge when there is no > output. So I finally went ahead and implemented TAP output in the > s390x-specific tests some months ago. > > Now I wonder whether that could be a good strategy for the x86 and > generic tests, too? Taking Andrew's thoughts a step further, I'm in favor of adding TAP output, but only if we implement it in such a way that it reduces the burden on writing new tests. I _really_ like that sync_regs_test's subtests are split into consumable chunks, but I worry that the amount of boilerplate needed will deter test writes and increase the maintenance cost. And my experience with KVM-unit-tests is that letting test writers specify strings for test names is a bad idea, e.g. using an arbitrary string creates a disconnect between what the user sees and what code is running, and makes it unnecessarily difficult to connect a failure back to code. And if we ever support running specific testcases by name (I'm still not sure this is a net positive), arbitrary strings get really annoying because inevitably an arbitrary string will contain characters that need to be escaped in the shell. Adding a macro or three to let tests define and run testscases with minimal effort would more or less eliminate the boilerplate. And in theory providing semi-rigid macros would help force simple tests to conform to standard patterns, which should reduce the cost of someone new understanding the test, and would likely let us do more automagic things in the future. E.g. something like this in the test: KVM_RUN_TESTCASES(vcpu, test_clear_kvm_dirty_regs_bits, test_set_invalid, test_req_and_verify_all_valid_regs, test_set_and_verify_various_reg_values, test_clear_kvm_dirty_regs_bits, );
On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 09:03:59PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2022, Thomas Huth wrote: > > Many KVM selftests are completely silent. This has the disadvantage > > for the users that they do not know what's going on here. For example, > > some time ago, a tester asked me how to know whether a certain new > > sub-test has been added to one of the s390x test binaries or not (which > > he didn't compile on his own), which is hard to judge when there is no > > output. So I finally went ahead and implemented TAP output in the > > s390x-specific tests some months ago. > > > > Now I wonder whether that could be a good strategy for the x86 and > > generic tests, too? > > Taking Andrew's thoughts a step further, I'm in favor of adding TAP output, but > only if we implement it in such a way that it reduces the burden on writing new > tests. I _really_ like that sync_regs_test's subtests are split into consumable > chunks, but I worry that the amount of boilerplate needed will deter test writes > and increase the maintenance cost. > > And my experience with KVM-unit-tests is that letting test writers specify strings > for test names is a bad idea, e.g. using an arbitrary string creates a disconnect > between what the user sees and what code is running, and makes it unnecessarily > difficult to connect a failure back to code. And if we ever support running > specific testcases by name (I'm still not sure this is a net positive), arbitrary > strings get really annoying because inevitably an arbitrary string will contain > characters that need to be escaped in the shell. > > Adding a macro or three to let tests define and run testscases with minimal effort > would more or less eliminate the boilerplate. And in theory providing semi-rigid > macros would help force simple tests to conform to standard patterns, which should > reduce the cost of someone new understanding the test, and would likely let us do > more automagic things in the future. > > E.g. something like this in the test: > > KVM_RUN_TESTCASES(vcpu, > test_clear_kvm_dirty_regs_bits, > test_set_invalid, > test_req_and_verify_all_valid_regs, > test_set_and_verify_various_reg_values, > test_clear_kvm_dirty_regs_bits, > ); There is an existing framework in tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_harness.h that provides macros for setting up and running tests cases. I converted sync_regs_test to use it below as an example [1]. The harness runs each subtest in a child process, so sharing a VM/VCPU across test cases is not possible. This means setting up and tearing down a VM for every test case, but the harness makes this pretty easy with FIXTURE_{SETUP,TEARDOWN}(). With this harness, we can keep using TEST_ASSERT() as-is, and still run all test cases even if one fails. Plus no need for the hard-coded ksft_*() calls in main(). [1] diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/sync_regs_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/sync_regs_test.c index 9b6db0b0b13e..11cf25d3e4a3 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/sync_regs_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/sync_regs_test.c @@ -20,6 +20,8 @@ #include "kvm_util.h" #include "processor.h" +#include "../kselftest_harness.h" + #define UCALL_PIO_PORT ((uint16_t)0x1000) struct ucall uc_none = { @@ -80,26 +82,23 @@ static void compare_vcpu_events(struct kvm_vcpu_events *left, #define TEST_SYNC_FIELDS (KVM_SYNC_X86_REGS|KVM_SYNC_X86_SREGS|KVM_SYNC_X86_EVENTS) #define INVALID_SYNC_FIELD 0x80000000 -int main(int argc, char *argv[]) -{ - struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; +FIXTURE(sync_regs_test) { struct kvm_vm *vm; - struct kvm_run *run; - struct kvm_regs regs; - struct kvm_sregs sregs; - struct kvm_vcpu_events events; - int rv, cap; - - /* Tell stdout not to buffer its content */ - setbuf(stdout, NULL); + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; +}; - cap = kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_SYNC_REGS); - TEST_REQUIRE((cap & TEST_SYNC_FIELDS) == TEST_SYNC_FIELDS); - TEST_REQUIRE(!(cap & INVALID_SYNC_FIELD)); +FIXTURE_SETUP(sync_regs_test) { + self->vm = vm_create_with_one_vcpu(&self->vcpu, guest_code); +} - vm = vm_create_with_one_vcpu(&vcpu, guest_code); +FIXTURE_TEARDOWN(sync_regs_test) { + kvm_vm_free(self->vm); +} - run = vcpu->run; +TEST_F(sync_regs_test, read_invalid) { + struct kvm_run *run = self->vcpu->run; + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = self->vcpu; + int rv; /* Request reading invalid register set from VCPU. */ run->kvm_valid_regs = INVALID_SYNC_FIELD; @@ -115,6 +114,12 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) "Invalid kvm_valid_regs did not cause expected KVM_RUN error: %d\n", rv); run->kvm_valid_regs = 0; +} + +TEST_F(sync_regs_test, set_invalid) { + struct kvm_run *run = self->vcpu->run; + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = self->vcpu; + int rv; /* Request setting invalid register set into VCPU. */ run->kvm_dirty_regs = INVALID_SYNC_FIELD; @@ -130,6 +135,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) "Invalid kvm_dirty_regs did not cause expected KVM_RUN error: %d\n", rv); run->kvm_dirty_regs = 0; +} + +TEST_F(sync_regs_test, req_and_verify_all_valid) { + struct kvm_run *run = self->vcpu->run; + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = self->vcpu; + struct kvm_vcpu_events events; + struct kvm_sregs sregs; + struct kvm_regs regs; + int rv; /* Request and verify all valid register sets. */ /* TODO: BUILD TIME CHECK: TEST_ASSERT(KVM_SYNC_X86_NUM_FIELDS != 3); */ @@ -148,6 +162,22 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) vcpu_events_get(vcpu, &events); compare_vcpu_events(&events, &run->s.regs.events); +} + +TEST_F(sync_regs_test, set_and_verify_various) { + struct kvm_run *run = self->vcpu->run; + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = self->vcpu; + struct kvm_vcpu_events events; + struct kvm_sregs sregs; + struct kvm_regs regs; + int rv; + + run->kvm_valid_regs = TEST_SYNC_FIELDS; + rv = _vcpu_run(vcpu); + TEST_ASSERT(run->exit_reason == KVM_EXIT_IO, + "Unexpected exit reason: %u (%s),\n", + run->exit_reason, + exit_reason_str(run->exit_reason)); /* Set and verify various register values. */ run->s.regs.regs.rbx = 0xBAD1DEA; @@ -176,6 +206,13 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) vcpu_events_get(vcpu, &events); compare_vcpu_events(&events, &run->s.regs.events); +} + +TEST_F(sync_regs_test, clear_kvm_valid_and_dirty) { + struct kvm_run *run = self->vcpu->run; + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = self->vcpu; + struct kvm_regs regs; + int rv; /* Clear kvm_dirty_regs bits, verify new s.regs values are * overwritten with existing guest values. @@ -199,6 +236,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) run->kvm_valid_regs = 0; run->kvm_dirty_regs = 0; run->s.regs.regs.rbx = 0xAAAA; + vcpu_regs_get(vcpu, ®s); regs.rbx = 0xBAC0; vcpu_regs_set(vcpu, ®s); rv = _vcpu_run(vcpu); @@ -213,6 +251,20 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) TEST_ASSERT(regs.rbx == 0xBAC0 + 1, "rbx guest value incorrect 0x%llx.", regs.rbx); +} + +TEST_F(sync_regs_test, clear_kvm_valid_regs) { + struct kvm_run *run = self->vcpu->run; + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = self->vcpu; + struct kvm_regs regs; + int rv; + + run->kvm_valid_regs = TEST_SYNC_FIELDS; + rv = _vcpu_run(vcpu); + TEST_ASSERT(run->exit_reason == KVM_EXIT_IO, + "Unexpected exit reason: %u (%s),\n", + run->exit_reason, + exit_reason_str(run->exit_reason)); /* Clear kvm_valid_regs bits. Verify s.regs values are not overwritten * with existing guest values but that guest values are overwritten @@ -233,8 +285,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) TEST_ASSERT(regs.rbx == 0xBBBB + 1, "rbx guest value incorrect 0x%llx.", regs.rbx); +} + +int main(int argc, char **argv) +{ + int cap; - kvm_vm_free(vm); + cap = kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_SYNC_REGS); + TEST_REQUIRE((cap & TEST_SYNC_FIELDS) == TEST_SYNC_FIELDS); + TEST_REQUIRE(!(cap & INVALID_SYNC_FIELD)); - return 0; + return test_harness_run(argc, argv); }
On Mon, Nov 07, 2022, David Matlack wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 09:03:59PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 04, 2022, Thomas Huth wrote: > > Adding a macro or three to let tests define and run testscases with minimal effort > > would more or less eliminate the boilerplate. And in theory providing semi-rigid > > macros would help force simple tests to conform to standard patterns, which should > > reduce the cost of someone new understanding the test, and would likely let us do > > more automagic things in the future. > > > > E.g. something like this in the test: > > > > KVM_RUN_TESTCASES(vcpu, > > test_clear_kvm_dirty_regs_bits, > > test_set_invalid, > > test_req_and_verify_all_valid_regs, > > test_set_and_verify_various_reg_values, > > test_clear_kvm_dirty_regs_bits, > > ); > > There is an existing framework in > tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_harness.h that provides macros for > setting up and running tests cases. I converted sync_regs_test to use it > below as an example [1]. Looks awesome! Some thoughts to cut down on boilerplate below. We'll also need to deal with the ASSERT_EQ conflict. Easiest thing there is to rename KVM's version to TEST_ASSERT_EQ(), which IMO is an improvement irrespective of this conversion. > The harness runs each subtest in a child process, so sharing a VM/VCPU > across test cases is not possible. This means setting up and tearing > down a VM for every test case, This is a feature, not a bug. My single biggest complaint about KVM-unit-tests is the lack of isolation between sub-tests. E.g. there have been far too many bugs where sub-tests fail if run on their own due to sub-tests relying on setup being done elsewhere. > but the harness makes this pretty easy with FIXTURE_{SETUP,TEARDOWN}(). With > this harness, we can keep using TEST_ASSERT() as-is, and still run all test > cases even if one fails. Plus no need for the hard-coded ksft_*() calls in > main(). > +FIXTURE(sync_regs_test) { > struct kvm_vm *vm; A dedicated "vm" field isn't necessary, it's available in the vcpu. > + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; > +}; > > - cap = kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_SYNC_REGS); > - TEST_REQUIRE((cap & TEST_SYNC_FIELDS) == TEST_SYNC_FIELDS); > - TEST_REQUIRE(!(cap & INVALID_SYNC_FIELD)); > +FIXTURE_SETUP(sync_regs_test) { > + self->vm = vm_create_with_one_vcpu(&self->vcpu, guest_code); > +} > > - vm = vm_create_with_one_vcpu(&vcpu, guest_code); > +FIXTURE_TEARDOWN(sync_regs_test) { > + kvm_vm_free(self->vm); From above, this would be: kvm_vm_free(self->vcpu->vm); > +} > > - run = vcpu->run; > +TEST_F(sync_regs_test, read_invalid) { Regardless of what other selftests do, IMO we should dress these up to look like the functions they are, i.e. put the curly brace on its own line. > + struct kvm_run *run = self->vcpu->run; I don't love the @self boilerplate, and the setup+teardown will be identical for the vast majority of simple tests. There will also be tests that want to run different guest code. What if we add our own wrappers (because one can never have enough macros) to handle most of the boilerplate? Sample conversion below (the wrapper macros would obviously go in a common header). And then to support per-testcase guest code, we could add vcpu_arch_set_guest_code() and another wrapper, e.g. #define KVM_ONE_VCPU_TEST_EX(suite, test, guest_code) \ static void __suite##_##test(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); \ \ TEST_F(suite, test) \ { \ vcpu_arch_set_guest_code(guest_code); \ __suite##_##test(self->vcpu); \ } \ static void __suite##_##test(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) Alternatives to "suite" would be bundle, crate, cluster, etc... --- .../selftests/kvm/x86_64/sync_regs_test.c | 119 ++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 93 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/sync_regs_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/sync_regs_test.c index 9b6db0b0b13e..b805170980bb 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/sync_regs_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/sync_regs_test.c @@ -20,6 +20,9 @@ #include "kvm_util.h" #include "processor.h" +#undef ASSERT_EQ +#include "../kselftest_harness.h" + #define UCALL_PIO_PORT ((uint16_t)0x1000) struct ucall uc_none = { @@ -80,26 +83,34 @@ static void compare_vcpu_events(struct kvm_vcpu_events *left, #define TEST_SYNC_FIELDS (KVM_SYNC_X86_REGS|KVM_SYNC_X86_SREGS|KVM_SYNC_X86_EVENTS) #define INVALID_SYNC_FIELD 0x80000000 -int main(int argc, char *argv[]) +#define KVM_ONE_VCPU_TEST_SUITE(name, guest_code) \ + FIXTURE(name) { \ + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; \ + }; \ + \ + FIXTURE_SETUP(name) { \ + (void)vm_create_with_one_vcpu(&self->vcpu, guest_code); \ + } \ + \ + FIXTURE_TEARDOWN(name) { \ + kvm_vm_free(self->vcpu->vm); \ + } + +#define KVM_ONE_VCPU_TEST(suite, test) \ +static void __suite##_##test(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); \ + \ +TEST_F(suite, test) \ +{ \ + __suite##_##test(self->vcpu); \ +} \ +static void __suite##_##test(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) + +KVM_ONE_VCPU_TEST_SUITE(sync_regs_test, guest_code); + +KVM_ONE_VCPU_TEST(sync_regs_test, read_invalid) { - struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; - struct kvm_vm *vm; - struct kvm_run *run; - struct kvm_regs regs; - struct kvm_sregs sregs; - struct kvm_vcpu_events events; - int rv, cap; - - /* Tell stdout not to buffer its content */ - setbuf(stdout, NULL); - - cap = kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_SYNC_REGS); - TEST_REQUIRE((cap & TEST_SYNC_FIELDS) == TEST_SYNC_FIELDS); - TEST_REQUIRE(!(cap & INVALID_SYNC_FIELD)); - - vm = vm_create_with_one_vcpu(&vcpu, guest_code); - - run = vcpu->run; + struct kvm_run *run = vcpu->run; + int rv; /* Request reading invalid register set from VCPU. */ run->kvm_valid_regs = INVALID_SYNC_FIELD; @@ -115,6 +126,12 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) "Invalid kvm_valid_regs did not cause expected KVM_RUN error: %d\n", rv); run->kvm_valid_regs = 0; +} + +KVM_ONE_VCPU_TEST(sync_regs_test, set_invalid) +{ + struct kvm_run *run = vcpu->run; + int rv; /* Request setting invalid register set into VCPU. */ run->kvm_dirty_regs = INVALID_SYNC_FIELD; @@ -130,11 +147,19 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) "Invalid kvm_dirty_regs did not cause expected KVM_RUN error: %d\n", rv); run->kvm_dirty_regs = 0; +} + +KVM_ONE_VCPU_TEST(sync_regs_test, req_and_verify_all_valid) +{ + struct kvm_run *run = vcpu->run; + struct kvm_vcpu_events events; + struct kvm_sregs sregs; + struct kvm_regs regs; /* Request and verify all valid register sets. */ /* TODO: BUILD TIME CHECK: TEST_ASSERT(KVM_SYNC_X86_NUM_FIELDS != 3); */ run->kvm_valid_regs = TEST_SYNC_FIELDS; - rv = _vcpu_run(vcpu); + vcpu_run(vcpu); TEST_ASSERT(run->exit_reason == KVM_EXIT_IO, "Unexpected exit reason: %u (%s),\n", run->exit_reason, @@ -148,6 +173,21 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) vcpu_events_get(vcpu, &events); compare_vcpu_events(&events, &run->s.regs.events); +} + +KVM_ONE_VCPU_TEST(sync_regs_test, set_and_verify_various) +{ + struct kvm_run *run = vcpu->run; + struct kvm_vcpu_events events; + struct kvm_sregs sregs; + struct kvm_regs regs; + + run->kvm_valid_regs = TEST_SYNC_FIELDS; + vcpu_run(vcpu); + TEST_ASSERT(run->exit_reason == KVM_EXIT_IO, + "Unexpected exit reason: %u (%s),\n", + run->exit_reason, + exit_reason_str(run->exit_reason)); /* Set and verify various register values. */ run->s.regs.regs.rbx = 0xBAD1DEA; @@ -156,7 +196,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) run->kvm_valid_regs = TEST_SYNC_FIELDS; run->kvm_dirty_regs = KVM_SYNC_X86_REGS | KVM_SYNC_X86_SREGS; - rv = _vcpu_run(vcpu); + vcpu_run(vcpu); TEST_ASSERT(run->exit_reason == KVM_EXIT_IO, "Unexpected exit reason: %u (%s),\n", run->exit_reason, @@ -176,6 +216,12 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) vcpu_events_get(vcpu, &events); compare_vcpu_events(&events, &run->s.regs.events); +} + +KVM_ONE_VCPU_TEST(sync_regs_test, clear_kvm_valid_and_dirty) +{ + struct kvm_run *run = vcpu->run; + struct kvm_regs regs; /* Clear kvm_dirty_regs bits, verify new s.regs values are * overwritten with existing guest values. @@ -183,7 +229,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) run->kvm_valid_regs = TEST_SYNC_FIELDS; run->kvm_dirty_regs = 0; run->s.regs.regs.rbx = 0xDEADBEEF; - rv = _vcpu_run(vcpu); + vcpu_run(vcpu); TEST_ASSERT(run->exit_reason == KVM_EXIT_IO, "Unexpected exit reason: %u (%s),\n", run->exit_reason, @@ -199,9 +245,10 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) run->kvm_valid_regs = 0; run->kvm_dirty_regs = 0; run->s.regs.regs.rbx = 0xAAAA; + vcpu_regs_get(vcpu, ®s); regs.rbx = 0xBAC0; vcpu_regs_set(vcpu, ®s); - rv = _vcpu_run(vcpu); + vcpu_run(vcpu); TEST_ASSERT(run->exit_reason == KVM_EXIT_IO, "Unexpected exit reason: %u (%s),\n", run->exit_reason, @@ -213,6 +260,19 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) TEST_ASSERT(regs.rbx == 0xBAC0 + 1, "rbx guest value incorrect 0x%llx.", regs.rbx); +} + +KVM_ONE_VCPU_TEST(sync_regs_test, clear_kvm_valid_regs) +{ + struct kvm_run *run = vcpu->run; + struct kvm_regs regs; + + run->kvm_valid_regs = TEST_SYNC_FIELDS; + vcpu_run(vcpu); + TEST_ASSERT(run->exit_reason == KVM_EXIT_IO, + "Unexpected exit reason: %u (%s),\n", + run->exit_reason, + exit_reason_str(run->exit_reason)); /* Clear kvm_valid_regs bits. Verify s.regs values are not overwritten * with existing guest values but that guest values are overwritten @@ -221,7 +281,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) run->kvm_valid_regs = 0; run->kvm_dirty_regs = TEST_SYNC_FIELDS; run->s.regs.regs.rbx = 0xBBBB; - rv = _vcpu_run(vcpu); + vcpu_run(vcpu); TEST_ASSERT(run->exit_reason == KVM_EXIT_IO, "Unexpected exit reason: %u (%s),\n", run->exit_reason, @@ -233,8 +293,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) TEST_ASSERT(regs.rbx == 0xBBBB + 1, "rbx guest value incorrect 0x%llx.", regs.rbx); +} + +int main(int argc, char **argv) +{ + int cap; - kvm_vm_free(vm); + cap = kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_SYNC_REGS); + TEST_REQUIRE((cap & TEST_SYNC_FIELDS) == TEST_SYNC_FIELDS); + TEST_REQUIRE(!(cap & INVALID_SYNC_FIELD)); - return 0; + return test_harness_run(argc, argv); } base-commit: d663b8a285986072428a6a145e5994bc275df994 --
On 08/11/2022 02.06, David Matlack wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 09:03:59PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 04, 2022, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> Many KVM selftests are completely silent. This has the disadvantage >>> for the users that they do not know what's going on here. For example, >>> some time ago, a tester asked me how to know whether a certain new >>> sub-test has been added to one of the s390x test binaries or not (which >>> he didn't compile on his own), which is hard to judge when there is no >>> output. So I finally went ahead and implemented TAP output in the >>> s390x-specific tests some months ago. >>> >>> Now I wonder whether that could be a good strategy for the x86 and >>> generic tests, too? >> >> Taking Andrew's thoughts a step further, I'm in favor of adding TAP output, but >> only if we implement it in such a way that it reduces the burden on writing new >> tests. I _really_ like that sync_regs_test's subtests are split into consumable >> chunks, but I worry that the amount of boilerplate needed will deter test writes >> and increase the maintenance cost. >> >> And my experience with KVM-unit-tests is that letting test writers specify strings >> for test names is a bad idea, e.g. using an arbitrary string creates a disconnect >> between what the user sees and what code is running, and makes it unnecessarily >> difficult to connect a failure back to code. And if we ever support running >> specific testcases by name (I'm still not sure this is a net positive), arbitrary >> strings get really annoying because inevitably an arbitrary string will contain >> characters that need to be escaped in the shell. >> >> Adding a macro or three to let tests define and run testscases with minimal effort >> would more or less eliminate the boilerplate. And in theory providing semi-rigid >> macros would help force simple tests to conform to standard patterns, which should >> reduce the cost of someone new understanding the test, and would likely let us do >> more automagic things in the future. >> >> E.g. something like this in the test: >> >> KVM_RUN_TESTCASES(vcpu, >> test_clear_kvm_dirty_regs_bits, >> test_set_invalid, >> test_req_and_verify_all_valid_regs, >> test_set_and_verify_various_reg_values, >> test_clear_kvm_dirty_regs_bits, >> ); > > There is an existing framework in > tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_harness.h that provides macros for > setting up and running tests cases. I converted sync_regs_test to use it > below as an example [1]. > > The harness runs each subtest in a child process, so sharing a VM/VCPU > across test cases is not possible. This means setting up and tearing > down a VM for every test case, but the harness makes this pretty easy > with FIXTURE_{SETUP,TEARDOWN}(). With this harness, we can keep using > TEST_ASSERT() as-is, and still run all test cases even if one fails. > Plus no need for the hard-coded ksft_*() calls in main(). Hi! Sorry for not getting back to this earlier - I'm pretty much busy with other stuff right now. But your suggestion looks really cool, I like it - so if you've got some spare time to work on the conversion, please go ahead (I won't have much time to work on this in the next weeks, I think)! Thomas