From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47496)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <armbru@redhat.com>) id 1dIV3Z-0000iR-LN
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Jun 2017 03:07:10 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <armbru@redhat.com>) id 1dIV3T-0007Gg-Hn
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Jun 2017 03:07:05 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59668)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <armbru@redhat.com>) id 1dIV3T-0007G4-CA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Jun 2017 03:06:59 -0400
From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
References: <20170605085254.16485-1-sf@sfritsch.de>
	<e27e8fb4-64fa-9ba9-26a2-aa2af758462b@redhat.com>
	<39506179-0abd-5bba-89a2-fe89e6f3a167@redhat.com>
	<87a85ljdhn.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org>
	<1378843477.6503332.1496789071735.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:06:53 +0200
In-Reply-To: <1378843477.6503332.1496789071735.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
	(Paolo Bonzini's message of "Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:44:31 -0400 (EDT)")
Message-ID: <8760g846pe.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Add chardev-send-break monitor command
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Stefan Fritsch <sf@sfritsch.de>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Dr. David
	Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>, =?utf-8?Q?Marc-Andr=C3=A9?= Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>

Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> writes:

>> >> Is there an obvious test that we can enhance to add coverage of the new
>> >> QMP command?
>> >
>> > You could have a new test covering hw/char/serial.c, but I wouldn't let
>> > that hold the patch.
>> 
>> Holding patches is pretty much the only leverage I have to get tests for
>> new stuff :)
>> 
>> Asking for tests that cover all of serial.c wouldn't be fair.  But I am
>> asking for basic test coverage of new QMP commands.
>
> I agree, on the other hand it's not exactly a comparable area.  I am planning
> to write a serial qtest for migration as well (which is more complex than this
> QMP command) so I might as well write the test for this new QMP command myself
> to get my feet wet...

I'm willing to take a committment from someone I trust in lieu of actual
tests.  Is this one?