Overhaul the riscv vector tests to use kselftest_harness to help the
test cases correctly report the results and decouple the individual test
cases from each other. With this refactoring, only run the test cases if
vector is reported and properly report the test case as skipped
otherwise. The v_initval_nolibc test was previously not checking if
vector was supported and used a function (malloc) which invalidates
the state of the vector registers.
Signed-off-by: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@rivosinc.com>
Tested-by: Yangyu Chen <cyy@cyyself.name>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241113-xtheadvector-v11-12-236c22791ef9@rivosinc.com
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
The minimal requirement for running Vector subextension on Linux is
ZVE32X. So change the test accordingly to run prctl as long as it find
it.
Signed-off-by: Andy Chiu <andy.chiu@sifive.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240510-zve-detection-v5-8-0711bdd26c12@sifive.com
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
Christoph Muellner <christoph.muellner@vrull.eu> says:
From: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muellner@vrull.eu>
When building the RISC-V selftests with a riscv32 compiler I ran into
a couple of compiler warnings. While riscv32 support for these tests is
questionable, the fixes are so trivial that it is probably best to simply
apply them.
Note that the missing-include patch and some format string warnings
are also relevant for riscv64.
* b4-shazam-merge:
tools: selftests: riscv: Fix compile warnings in mm tests
tools: selftests: riscv: Fix compile warnings in vector tests
tools: selftests: riscv: Add missing include for vector test
tools: selftests: riscv: Fix compile warnings in cbo
tools: selftests: riscv: Fix compile warnings in hwprobe
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231123185821.2272504-1-christoph.muellner@vrull.eu
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
GCC prints a couple of format string warnings when compiling
the vector tests. Let's follow the recommendation in
Documentation/printk-formats.txt to fix these warnings.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muellner@vrull.eu>
Reviewed-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231123185821.2272504-5-christoph.muellner@vrull.eu
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
The "count" parameter associated with the 'cpus' parameter of the
hwprobe syscall is the size in bytes of 'cpus'. Naming it 'cpu_count'
may mislead users (it did me) to think it's the number of CPUs that
are or can be represented by 'cpus' instead. This is particularly
easy (IMO) to get wrong since 'cpus' is documented to be defined by
CPU_SET(3) and CPU_SET(3) also documents a CPU_COUNT() (the number
of CPUs in set) macro. CPU_SET(3) refers to the size of cpu sets
with 'setsize'. Adopt 'cpusetsize' for the hwprobe parameter and
specifically state it is in bytes in Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst
to clarify.
Reviewed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231122164700.127954-7-ajones@ventanamicro.com
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
