From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm-unit-test: more documentation and runner script
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:51:40 +0200
Message-ID: <20130228095140.GV23616@redhat.com>
References: <20130227155557.GA23629@redhat.com>
 <512E4BF9.5090704@redhat.com>
 <20130227204416.GB26956@redhat.com>
 <512E74AD.3050706@redhat.com>
 <20130227214037.GA27463@redhat.com>
 <20130228090617.GT23616@redhat.com>
 <20130228094533.GB7806@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues <lmr@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:10577 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750897Ab3B1Jvm (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 28 Feb 2013 04:51:42 -0500
Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1S9pgEh020181
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 04:51:42 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130228094533.GB7806@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:45:33AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:06:20AM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:40:37PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > 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?
> > > 
> > Since you know what device you are using you know expected value for
> > successful/failure.
> 
> So exit status is 1 for success 0 for failure?
> 
As Lucas said above upstream is different from qemu-kvm unfortunately.
On upstream you need to shift return value right for 1 bit to get to
the tests return value (why?) and then 0 will be success otherwise failure.

--
			Gleb.