Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv2] tests: re-enable vhost-user-test

["Marc-André Lureau" <mlureau@redhat.com>]

Hi

----- Original Message -----
> On 26 October 2015 at 14:32,  <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> wrote:
> > From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
> >
> > Commit 7fe34ca9c2e actually disabled vhost-user-test altogether,
> > since CONFIG_VHOST_NET is a per-target config variable.
> >
> > tests/vhost-user-test is already x86/x64 softmmu specific test, in order
> > to enable it correctly, kvm & vhost-net are also conditions. To check
> > that, set CONFIG_VHOST_NET_TEST_$target when kvm is also enabled.
> >
> > Since "check-qtest-x86_64-y = $(check-qtest-i386-y)", avoid duplication
> > when both x86 & x64 are enabled.
> >
> > Other targets than x86 aren't enabled yet, and is intentionally left as
> > a future improvement, since I can't easily test those.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
> 
> I ran this through my build-tests, which pass, but:
> 
> (a) there's still the clang warning about the negative shifts
> in target-i386/. This is an ancient bug and we can fix it later.

I sent a patch to fix this.

> (b) there are new warning messages:
> Warning: path not on HugeTLBFS: /tmp/vhost-test-xaGJRK
> Warning: path not on HugeTLBFS: /tmp/vhost-test-xaGJRK
> Warning: path not on HugeTLBFS: /tmp/vhost-test-xaGJRK

These are part of qemu file_ram_alloc()

> I would like (b) fixed -- tests should either:
>  (1) complete without printing "warning" about anything

We would need to change the qemu warning.

>  (2) fail the test if the warning is actually important
>  (3) skip the test if the test requires something that the host
>      machine doesn't have (like a hugetlbfs)

It is not important for the test to succeed.

I imagine a few options to get rid of the warning:
1. only run the test on hugetlbfs
2. remove the warning from qemu
3. silence qemu errors in the test
4. add an option to memory-backend-file to require hugetlbfs: something like ...,require-hugetlbfs=true,false,warn

I guess 4. is the most interesting, although I would need some advice on how to express this best.

(tbh, I think this could be addressed later)