Re: [Patch v3 12/13] KVM: selftests: Make vCPU exit reason test assertion common.

[Vipin Sharma]

On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 5:48 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2022, David Matlack wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 11:14:29AM -0800, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> > > Make ASSERT_EXIT_REASON() macro and replace all exit reason test assert
> > > statements with it.
> > >
> > > No functional changes intended.
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > > ---
> > >  .../testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/psci_test.c |  4 +--
> > >  .../testing/selftests/kvm/include/test_util.h | 10 ++++++++
> > [...]
> > >  .../selftests/kvm/x86_64/xapic_ipi_test.c     |  6 +----
> > >  .../selftests/kvm/x86_64/xen_shinfo_test.c    |  7 +-----
> > >  .../selftests/kvm/x86_64/xen_vmcall_test.c    |  5 +---
> > >  44 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 293 deletions(-)
> >
> > Nice diff stat :)
>
> I like the diffstat too, but I think we need a slightly different name for the
> macro.  "EXIT_REASON" can be interpreted as "hardware exit reason" or "KVM exit
> (to userspace) reason".  Most usage will be fairly obvious, but I'd like to avoid
> confusion when swapping between selftests and KVM-unit-tests (which often asserts
> on the hardware exit reason).   The name will be a bit longer, but I don't think
> line length with ever be a problem.  And most people will just copy+paste so finger
> fatigue likeliy won't be an issue either.
>
> I also vote to prefix it with TEST, i.e. TEST_ASSERT_KVM_EXIT_REASON(), for
> consistency and to make it very clear it's a TEST_ASSERT() wrapper.  ASSERT_EQ()
> makes me twitch every time I see it.  This is definitely a personal preference
> (or problem) I can survive with though :-)

I will send a patch with TEST_ASSERT_KVM_EXIT_REASON. No one should
twitch while reading code!