From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm-unit-test: more documentation and runner script
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 23:40:37 +0200
Message-ID: <20130227214037.GA27463@redhat.com>
References: <20130227155557.GA23629@redhat.com>
 <512E4BF9.5090704@redhat.com>
 <20130227204416.GB26956@redhat.com>
 <512E74AD.3050706@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, gleb@redhat.com
To: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues <lmr@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:19755 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750699Ab3B0VkW (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:40:22 -0500
Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1RLeMnu020200
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:40:22 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <512E74AD.3050706@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 06:03:41PM -0300, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
> On 02/27/2013 05:44 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>+Using qemu (supported since qemu 1.3):
> >>>+qemu-system-x86_64 -enable-kvm -device pc-testdev -serial stdio -device isa-debug-exit,iobase=0xf4,iosize=0x4 -kernel ./x86/msr.flat
> >>
> >>I think it is worth here to point out that with new qemu, after the
> >>unittest is done, the exit status of qemu is 1, different from the
> >>'old style', whose exit status in successful completion is 0.
> 
> ^ "comment above"
> 
> >>
> >>>+exec ${command} "$@"
> >>
> >>^ What about checking the exit status of qemu here and print
> >>something like "test $@ PASS" or "test $@ FAIL"?
> >
> >How do we know how to interpret it?
> >Overall I think it's best to rely on test output
> >than on return status.
> 
> See comment above. Well, test output may be good for humans, but it
> is really not good for machines [1], that's why when the test suite
> was developed, the convention was to make qemu to exit with a given
> return code on success and others on failure.

Right but given a qemu binary, how do I find out what it is on success
and what it is on failure?

> Anyway, it was just a
> suggestion, feel free to disregard it.
> 
> [1] having to parse the output and try to guess what is a pass or
> fail is a mess at best, and should be avoided unless we positively
> have no saner way of doing it.