From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:42073) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SUaII-0001gY-33 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 May 2012 05:13:24 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SUaI7-0004nd-Hh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 May 2012 05:13:17 -0400 Received: from e23smtp08.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.141]:49876) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SUaI4-0004mm-A7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 May 2012 05:13:07 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp08.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 16 May 2012 08:35:29 +1000 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (d23av02.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.138]) by d23relay05.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q4G8JR0n9437304 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 18:30:26 +1000 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av02.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q4G8NRm9015129 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 18:23:27 +1000 Message-ID: <4FB363F7.5080601@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 16:23:19 +0800 From: Zhi Hui Li MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1337073445-9679-1-git-send-email-zhihuili@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1337073445-9679-3-git-send-email-zhihuili@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4FB22171.7050104@redhat.com> <4FB222FF.8050905@redhat.com> <4FB22405.9060203@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4FB22405.9060203@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/3 v6] Replace bdrv_* to bdrv_aio_* functions in DMA mode in fdc.c List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini , Kevin Wolf Cc: zhihuili@cn.ibm.com, =?UTF-8?B?SGVydsOpIFBvdXNzaW5lYXU=?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 2012年05月15日 17:38, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 15/05/2012 11:33, Kevin Wolf ha scritto: >>>> which blindly overwrites status2. Hence the new code was not written >>>> based on it. However, the new code is untested as far as I know. >> In the thread of an earlier version of this series, I said that a qtest >> for floppy is required. This only confirms it. > > The problem with writing a qtest is that the spec is incredibly complex > and obscure. It's probably even better to rip out code that cannot be > tested properly, so you don't have to test it at all... > > (Mostly tongue-in-cheek of course. A qtest for basic read/write in PIO > and DMA modes is indeed a very good idea). > > Paolo > > Yes , I think maybe Paolo is right. Because the spec is incredibly complex and obscure and I am newer. To write the whole code's qtest beyond my ability. I am afraid I can't finish it. so I want only do a qtest about basic read/write in PIO and DMA modes. I don't know whether it is OK. (I don't know whether we can use qtest to replace the real test, especially on PIO mode 's test.) Thank you very much.