From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50813) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fRJrD-0007Ej-IJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2018 12:03:20 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fRJr8-0001ga-PT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2018 12:03:19 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:46264 helo=mx1.redhat.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fRJr8-0001g6-Jx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2018 12:03:14 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 19:03:10 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20180608190040-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20180607223111.27792-1-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> <20180607223111.27792-2-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> <20180608020724-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <5352d2fb-9244-78b0-4f4b-2818359a4425@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5352d2fb-9244-78b0-4f4b-2818359a4425@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu PATCH 2/5] acpi: "make check" should fail on asl mismatch List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth Cc: Ross Zwisler , Eduardo Habkost , linux-nvdimm , Qemu Developers , Stefan Hajnoczi , Igor Mammedov , Dan Williams On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 07:17:51AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 08.06.2018 01:09, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 04:31:08PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote: > >> Currently if "make check" detects a mismatch in the ASL generated during > >> testing, we print an error such as: > >> > >> acpi-test: Warning! SSDT mismatch. Actual [asl:/tmp/asl-QZDWJZ.dsl, > >> aml:/tmp/aml-T8JYJZ], Expected [asl:/tmp/asl-DTWVJZ.dsl, > >> aml:tests/acpi-test-data/q35/SSDT.dimmpxm]. > >> > >> but the testing still exits with good shell status. This is wrong, and > >> makes bisecting such a failure difficult. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler > > > > Failing would also mean that any change must update the expected files > > at the same time. And that in turn is problematic because expected > > files are binary and can't be merged. > > > > In other words the way we devel ACPI right now means that bisect will > > periodically produce a diff, it's not an error. > > But apparently the current way also allows that real bug go unnoticed > for a while, until somebody accidentially spots the warning in the > output of "make check". Wouldn't it be better to fail at CI time > already? If a merge of the file is required, you can still resolve that > manually (i.e. by rebasing one of the pull requests). > > Thomas Pull requests are somewhat different, they are usually tested for lack of warnings. This change didn't arrive as a result of a pull request maybe that's why it slipped through the cracks. Peter? Maybe we need a "pedantic" flag to fail on any warnings, or just catch output to stderr. -- MST