From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53532) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V6dCZ-0003Jw-Tn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Aug 2013 05:05:17 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V6dCQ-0001wx-15 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Aug 2013 05:05:11 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:60981 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V6dCP-0001ti-Os for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Aug 2013 05:05:01 -0400 Message-ID: <5200BC39.8080206@suse.de> Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 11:04:57 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1375709247-10002-1-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de> <87y58fyzza.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> In-Reply-To: <87y58fyzza.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-1.6? v2 00/21] qtest: Test all targets List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: Anthony Liguori , Peter Maydell , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, =?UTF-8?B?QXVyw6lsaWVuIEphcm5v?= Am 06.08.2013 10:39, schrieb Markus Armbruster: > Andreas F=C3=A4rber writes: >=20 >> Hello Anthony/Aur=C3=A9lien, >> >> This series extends test coverage to all 16 targets. >> For now it tests that QOM type changes do not lead to QOM cast asserti= ons. >> >> v2 extends it to cover virtually all machines (except Xen and pc*-x.y)= . >> Where an fprintf() is touched, use error_report() instead. >=20 > Yes, we need such a smoke test for all targets. >=20 > I toyed with it myself, but I haven't been able to go beyond the crude > hackery we discussed about a year ago: > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-08/msg01197.html >=20 > The problem is that many targets have mandatory options (fun oxymoron), > such as -kernel or -pflash. >=20 > If I understand your approach correctly, you solve it by making these > mandatory options optional when qtest_enabled(). >=20 > My idea was to create suitable dummy images, so we can provide the > mandatory options. Guest won't be happy, but that's fine, as this smok= e > test doesn't want to run any guest code. Peter rejected having a U-Boot per machine. And from my own arm porting experiences that would mean having close to one source of U-Boot per machine since upstreaming works really badly in the embedded world. :( Anthony's JeOS project doesn't seem to be actively worked on any more, at least my patch unbreaking .gitmodules never seemed to get incorporated, and I ran into the issue of openrisc and unicore32 (the targets where we didn't have any test images at the time) not having upstream binutils/gcc support yet. I really hate to say: I did predict one source of binutils/gcc/uClibc/kernel/etc. was not going to be sufficient for all targets... > I like my idea better, because with it we can run unmodified standard > code. No testing of qtest_enabled(). >=20 > However, you've got patches, and I haven't, and that means I like your > *patches* infinitely more than mine ;) Thanks. I'm thinking "qtest" is easy to grep for in machines and most should be easy to revert/replace once we have a better plan. Andreas --=20 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=C3=BCrnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=C3=B6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=C3=BC= rnberg