On 1/24/22 10:55 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

Currently we unconditionally test the ability to set the vector length inheritance flag via ptrace meaning that we generate false failures on systems that don't support SVE when we attempt to set the vector length there. Check the hwcap and mark the tests as skipped when it's not present.

Fixes: 0ba1ce1e86052d ("selftests: arm64: Add coverage of ptrace flags for SVE VL inheritance") Signed-off-by: Mark Brown broonie@kernel.org

---

tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/sve-ptrace.c | 9 ++++++++- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/sve-ptrace.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/sve-ptrace.c index af798b9d232c..0cf78360c5bc 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/sve-ptrace.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/sve-ptrace.c @@ -557,7 +557,14 @@ static int do_parent(pid_t child) } /* prctl() flags */

• ptrace_set_get_inherit(child, &vec_types[i]);
  

• if (getauxval(vec_types[i].hwcap_type) & vec_types[i].hwcap) {
  

• 	ptrace_set_get_inherit(child, &vec_types[i]);
  

• } else {
  

• 	ksft_test_result_skip("%s SVE_PT_VL_INHERIT set\n",
  

• 			      vec_types[i].name);
  

• 	ksft_test_result_skip("%s SVE_PT_VL_INHERIT cleared\n",
  

• 			      vec_types[i].name);
  

These messages are a bit confusing. Are we skipping two tests? These messages can be combined into one like this one on lin 572:

ksft_test_result_skip("%s get/set VL %d\n", vec_types[i].name, vl);

• }
  

/* Step through every possible VQ */ for (vq = SVE_VQ_MIN; vq <= SVE_VQ_MAX; vq++) {

thanks, -- Shuah

On 1/24/22 10:55 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

There's a cut'n'paste error in the logging for our test for reading register state back via ptrace, correctly say that we did a read instead of a write.

Signed-off-by: Mark Brown broonie@kernel.org

tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/sve-ptrace.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/sve-ptrace.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/sve-ptrace.c index 0cf78360c5bc..a3c1e67441f9 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/sve-ptrace.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/sve-ptrace.c @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static void ptrace_sve_fpsimd(pid_t child, const struct vec_type *type) } ksft_test_result((sve->flags & SVE_PT_REGS_MASK) == SVE_PT_REGS_FPSIMD,

• 	 "Set FPSIMD registers via %s\n", type->name);
  

• 	 "Got FPSIMD registers via %s\n", type->name);
  

  if ((sve->flags & SVE_PT_REGS_MASK) != SVE_PT_REGS_FPSIMD) goto out;

Looks good to me. Assuming this is going through ARM tree

Reviewed-by: Shuah Khan skhan@linuxfoundation.org

thanks, -- Shuah