From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:39613) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RgJh3-0008Fi-TD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 12:23:06 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RgJgz-00029y-HP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 12:23:05 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:62939) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RgJgz-00029u-56 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 12:23:01 -0500 Message-ID: <4EFCA1EF.2@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:22:55 +0200 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4EEF70B4.3070109@us.ibm.com> <4EF73EF5.8050606@redhat.com> <4EF88EC0.8020301@codemonkey.ws> <4EF8FC88.70809@redhat.com> <4EFA4829.4000207@redhat.com> <4EFA80EA.3050405@codemonkey.ws> <4EFAA2A2.4000107@redhat.com> <4EFB2764.7040006@codemonkey.ws> <4EFB2F36.2090408@redhat.com> <4EFB46DD.4000905@codemonkey.ws> <4EFB5014.9030609@redhat.com> <4EFC94A9.1040300@codemonkey.ws> <4EFC994C.9030205@redhat.com> <4EFC9B05.3060606@codemonkey.ws> <4EFC9E88.5030909@redhat.com> <4EFC9FDD.5020608@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <4EFC9FDD.5020608@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [ANNOUNCE] qemu-test: a set of tests scripts for QEMU List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: "lmr@redhat.com" , Stefan Hajnoczi , cleber@redhat.com, dlaor@redhat.com, qemu-devel , Gerd Hoffmann , Cleber Rosa On 12/29/2011 07:14 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 12/29/2011 11:08 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> On 12/29/2011 06:53 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>>> In what way is your specifically configured kernel's TCP stack better >>>> than the random distro's kernel's? >>> >>> >>> I firmly believe that with qtest we'll end up eventually building a >>> libOS to make it easier to write qtest tests. >>> >>> Overtime, that libOS will become increasingly complex up until the >>> point where it approaches something that feels like an actual OS. >>> Effort spent developing libOS is a cost to building test cases. >>> >>> By using Linux and a minimal userspace as our libOS, we can avoid >>> spending a lot of time building a sophisticated libOS. If we need >>> advanced libOS features, we just use qemu-test. If it's just a matter >>> of poking some registers on a device along, we just use qtest. >> >> Would there be device-level tests in qemu-test? > > What is a "device-level" test? > A test that tests just one device (or a patch to a single device's device emulation). > Take a look at: > > http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu-test.git;a=blob;f=scripts/bin/fingerprint;h=2d4202a826917b16856a2acb4617f623fdc4c0d3;hb=HEAD > > > It's reading BAR0 from any virtio devices to determine the guest > features exposed. Yes, it's written in sh :-) It would be trivial once libos exists. And we need libos so we can -ENOTEST device patches, yes? > It uses the BAR mappings that sysfs exposes. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function