From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-181.mta0.migadu.com (out-181.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 312E12659FF; Thu, 13 Feb 2025 13:59:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.181 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739455177; cv=none; b=bRfGVd3CsHypAikXCK8bKJVq4wnd3fznMBa/hK92HzoxfHCI7pdveoG7D0QgNlcTTBI+g9Lvqtl36A4GDpS26bhD6GXXCiFhXkkKD7KdGKwqu5trvErzNGSDuJ7h+sMBkTVjgiyQ+vRW16LZgop6v5Jybin7Wz1egtQsu3z+Mkg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739455177; c=relaxed/simple; bh=cDbU7M3nb3YVSOukISqyiklXkeydmb+/cAbnL3ACgMM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=n8RqLRTl/We/xLfL+YEi914WduYOIC/mbApVTA7p5Y8tVT69b2mfDOU2RsOtzMaUICcfKN0zrF+k/f8kw2ffk7B/kwpBe3VO9lqxcHUKYuWs0x0CxILvu66PIZX18+fzgbpcYh4GLj0FfG1yCXDUZ54HgkI3oe7hJ+mnj2tHkFg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=oxL4AOv2; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.181 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="oxL4AOv2" Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:59:19 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1739455163; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=quCNt3rENXxq12lVNZV7KFjjQFYvI9uo2HoGXNuB/os=; b=oxL4AOv2PByqQJRmy2LV/aaLcm7zlaNJBU3a6mZ4KiT1XwSVG9tf4Z3GzbapebfxcHiqJx A7DPMUZTuDaWda9Ms+5FMzarxZGNtmgIgBHFlsikf73RqRVlrke009F2yKj0xwukbdTbKX kTUfgGhAYWnCki1zK3SlWOvzxZvLrdU= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Andrew Jones To: Alexandru Elisei Cc: eric.auger@redhat.com, lvivier@redhat.com, thuth@redhat.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com, imbrenda@linux.ibm.com, nrb@linux.ibm.com, david@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, will@kernel.org, julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com, maz@kernel.org, oliver.upton@linux.dev, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, yuzenghui@huawei.com, joey.gouly@arm.com, andre.przywara@arm.com Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 15/18] Add kvmtool_params to test specification Message-ID: <20250213-a6741ec8fd32c34500327176@orel> References: <20250120164316.31473-1-alexandru.elisei@arm.com> <20250120164316.31473-16-alexandru.elisei@arm.com> <20250123-bbd289cfd7abfd93e9b67eef@orel> <20250212-77a312138f8b5931553ece38@orel> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 04:34:44PM +0000, Alexandru Elisei wrote: > Hi Drew, > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 04:56:42PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 03:03:09PM +0000, Alexandru Elisei wrote: > > > Hi Drew, > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 04:53:29PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 04:43:13PM +0000, Alexandru Elisei wrote: > > > > > arm/arm64 supports running tests under kvmtool, but kvmtool's syntax for > > > > > running a virtual machine is different than qemu's. To run tests using the > > > > > automated test infrastructure, add a new test parameter, kvmtool_params. > > > > > The parameter serves the exact purpose as qemu_params/extra_params, but using > > > > > kvmtool's syntax. > > > > > > > > The need for qemu_params and kvmtool_params makes more sense to me now > > > > that I see the use in unittests.cfg (I wonder if we can't rearrange this > > > > series to help understand these things up front?). There's a lot of > > > > > > Certainly, I'll move it closer to the beginning of the series. > > > > > > > duplication, though, with having two sets of params since the test- > > > > specific inputs always have to be duplicated. To avoid the duplication > > > > I think we can use extra_params for '-append' and '--params' by > > > > parametrizing the option name for "params" (-append / --params) and then > > > > create qemu_opts and kvmtool_opts for extra options like --pmu, --mem, > > > > and irqchip. > > > > > > How about something like this (I am using selftest-setup as an example, all the > > > other test definitions would be similarly modified): > > > > > > diff --git a/arm/unittests.cfg b/arm/unittests.cfg > > > index 2bdad67d5693..3009305ba2d3 100644 > > > --- a/arm/unittests.cfg > > > +++ b/arm/unittests.cfg > > > @@ -15,7 +15,9 @@ > > > [selftest-setup] > > > file = selftest.flat > > > smp = 2 > > > -extra_params = -m 256 -append 'setup smp=2 mem=256' > > > +test_args = setup smp=2 mem=256 > > > +qemu_params = -m 256 > > > +kvmtool_params = --mem 256 > > > groups = selftest > > > > > > I was thinking about using 'test_args' instead of 'extra_params' to avoid any > > > confusion between the two, and to match how they are passed to a test > > > - they are in the argv main's argument. > > > > Yes, this looks good and test_args is better than my suggestion in the > > other mail of 'cmdline_options' since "cmdline" would be ambiguous with > > the test's cmdline and the vmm's cmdline. > > > > > > > > Also, should I change the test definitions for all the other architectures? > > > It's not going to be possible for me to test all the changes. > > > > We should be safe with an s/extra_params/qemu_params/ change for all > > architectures and CI is pretty good, so we'd have good confidence > > if it passes, but, I think we should keep extra_params as a qemu_params > > alias anyway since it's possible that people have wrapped kvm-unit-tests > > in test harnesses which generate unittests.cfg files. > > Sounds good, split extra_params into test_args and qemu_params in all > unittests.cfg files, and keep extra_params as an alias for qemu_params. > > I was thinking that maybe I should send that as a separate patch, to make > sure it gets the visibility it deserves from the other maintainers, instead > of it being buried in a 18 patch series. What do you think? Sounds good. Thanks, drew