Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] acpi-test: basic acpi unit-test

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 02:13:44AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 17.10.2013 23:52, schrieb Michael S. Tsirkin:
> > diff --git a/tests/acpi-test.c b/tests/acpi-test.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..42de248
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tests/acpi-test.c
> [...]
> > +static void test_acpi_one(const char *params)
> > +{
> > +    char *args;
> > +    uint8_t signature_low;
> > +    uint8_t signature_high;
> > +    uint16_t signature;
> > +    int i;
> > +    uint32_t off;
> > +
> > +
> > +    args = g_strdup_printf("-net none -display none %s %s",
> > +                           params ? params : "", disk);
> > +    qtest_start(args);
> > +
> > +   /* Wait at most 1 minute */
> > +#define TEST_DELAY (1 * G_USEC_PER_SEC / 10)
> > +#define TEST_CYCLES (60 * G_USEC_PER_SEC / TEST_DELAY)
> > +
> > +    for (i = 0; i < TEST_CYCLES; ++i) {
> > +        signature_low = readb(BOOT_SECTOR_ADDRESS + SIGNATURE_OFFSET);
> > +        signature_high = readb(BOOT_SECTOR_ADDRESS + SIGNATURE_OFFSET + 1);
> > +        signature = (signature_high << 8) | signature_low;
> > +        if (signature == SIGNATURE) {
> > +            break;
> > +        }
> > +        g_usleep(TEST_DELAY);
> > +    }
> > +    g_assert_cmphex(signature, ==, SIGNATURE);
> 
> Might be a good safety precaution to use QEMU_BUG_ON() or MIN(..., 1)
> for TEST_CYCLES to assure signature gets initialized before comparison.

You mean check that TEST_CYCLES > 0?

> > +
> > +    /* OK, now find RSDP */
> > +    for (off = 0xf0000; off < 0x100000; off += 0x10)
> > +    {
> > +        uint8_t sig[] = "RSD PTR ";
> > +        int i;
> > +
> > +        for (i = 0; i < sizeof sig - 1; ++i) {
> > +            sig[i] = readb(off + i);
> > +        }
> > +
> > +        if (!memcmp(sig, "RSD PTR ", sizeof sig)) {
> > +            break;
> > +        }
> > +    }
> > +
> > +    g_assert_cmphex(off, <, 0x100000);
> > +
> > +    qtest_quit(global_qtest);
> > +    g_free(args);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void test_acpi_tcg(void)
> > +{
> > +    test_acpi_one("-machine accel=tcg");
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void test_acpi_kvm(void)
> > +{
> > +    test_acpi_one("-enable-kvm -machine accel=kvm");
> > +}
> > +
> > +int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> > +{
> > +    const char *arch = qtest_get_arch();
> > +    FILE *f = fopen(disk, "w");
> > +    fwrite(boot_sector, 1, sizeof boot_sector, f);
> > +    fclose(f);
> > +
> > +    g_test_init(&argc, &argv, NULL);
> > +
> > +    if (strcmp(arch, "i386") == 0 || strcmp(arch, "x86_64") == 0) {
> > +        qtest_add_func("acpi/tcg", test_acpi_tcg);
> > +        qtest_add_func("acpi/kvm", test_acpi_kvm);
> 
> Sorry, while the intention is good, this is a no-go. Not only will make
> check fail on KVM-incompatible x86 hosts (including insufficient
> permissions for /dev/kvm), it will also fail on ppc or arm hosts since
> we are testing the target architecture here.
> 
> Regards,
> Andreas

I'll limit this to tcg for now.

> > +    }
> > +    return g_test_run();
> > +}
> [snip]
> 
> -- 
> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
> GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg