Re: [PATCH v9 5/5] xen/riscv: test basic handling stuff

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 02.07.2024 13:23, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Oleksii Kurochko <oleksii.kurochko@xxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>  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 ( ;; )