From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48467) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VmIOr-00034E-Mb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 02:22:12 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VmIOk-00050z-CI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 02:22:05 -0500 Received: from m50-133.163.com ([123.125.50.133]:35201) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VmIOj-0004zg-Gd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 02:21:58 -0500 Message-ID: <529840B5.3090709@163.com> Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 15:22:29 +0800 From: =?UTF-8?B?6LW15bCP5by6?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1383638143-11812-1-git-send-email-zxq_yx_007@163.com> <1383638143-11812-3-git-send-email-zxq_yx_007@163.com> <1383639922.556.10.camel@G08FNSTD131468> <5278B1A3.40109@163.com> <528055EC.6080600@163.com> <528240C7.6050006@suse.de> <528316FC.4090901@163.com> <5297ED2A.700@163.com> <52980E7E.4070302@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <52980E7E.4070302@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/4] apic: QOM'ify apic & icc_bus List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= Cc: Chen Fan , pbonzini@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, aliguori@amazon.com 于 11/29/2013 11:48 AM, Andreas Färber 写道: > Am 29.11.2013 02:26, schrieb 赵小强: >> 于 11/12/2013 10:52 PM, Andreas Färber 写道: >>> it would be nice if you could check whether these >>> devices (the non-KVM versions at least) are covered by make check. For >>> ICC bus I am certain that it is. >> 1. Does "make check" mean the build target in the Makefile ? > Yes, in particular the make check-qtest target (check-qtest-x86_64). > >> if it >> is, I can not find anything about "icc_bus" under "tests" directory. Or >> you refer to something else? > IIUC there is no strict need for an icc_bus-test.c because any test > using -M pc (or default for i386 or x86_64) is implicitly using icc_bus > and I don't recall any MMIO or similar implementation for ICC. It was > just a hot-pluggable version of SysBus. My question was, does this > implicit testing apply to the other devices touched here as well or not. > >> 2. What does "enable the *APIC devices and have the realize functions >> actually exercised?" mean? > It may mean for instance, add printfs (or assertions or breakpoints or > trace points in core QOM code...) to the initialization code of those > devices, run make followed by make check to see if all of them show up. > If not, add apic-test.c, ioapic-test.c etc. using whatever -device or > -cpu command lines necessary to trigger the printfs - and then obviously > drop any debug printfs agains. But if I knew the answer already I > wouldn't ask you to investigate. :) > > What I am not asking for is functional tests for registers or whatever - > you did not write that code, you should just assure that your realize > refactorings do not break device initialization accidentally. > > If you do find time to work on this and find that some non-KVM device is > not covered: I was going to split off icc_bus into its own patch from 2/4. > > Regards, > Andreas > Hi, Andreas: As you said, I spent some time check my code. ( also by compile and run a real gentoo guest) I find ALL the non-KVM device (apic, ioapic) are covered by make check . The KVM version are also worked correctly! the "realize" is called as expect and device initialization is success in both cases. (KVM and non-KVM) So far, I can say that the changes I made is harmless :-)