From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55002) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fBio5-0003BK-5h for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 11:27:38 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fBio4-0007OD-5i for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 11:27:37 -0400 References: <1521452376-25099-1-git-send-email-thuth@redhat.com> <87in8qf2w3.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <62dba5cf-b497-1a98-0af5-971e169a3458@redhat.com> <877eou2nek.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: <71e91497-42bd-eea7-636d-9e725c4d2906@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:27:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <877eou2nek.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] tests/device-introspect: Test devices with all machines, not only with "none" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= , qemu-arm@nongnu.org, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Eduardo Habkost On 26.04.2018 13:54, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Thomas Huth writes: [...] > Actually, a worse offender in the "waste everybody's time via redunancy= " > department could be qom-test. I guess we could also change the logic in qom-tester to only run with all machines if we're in SPEED=3Dslow mode, and rather only use the "none= " machine by default? >> Anyway, do you think my patch here is useful and has a chance of getti= ng >> included? I.e. shall I re-spin this as a non-RFC patch? Or shall we >> rather wait for Eduardo's python-based tests to get included into the >> repository? >=20 > I don't mind having make check SPEED=3Dslow run more extensive tests. > Assuming we actually run them at least once in a while, which seems > doubtful. If some developers (like myself) are running it at least every couple of weeks manually, that's already much better than nothing! >>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth >>>> --- >>>> In case someone wants to help with creating some bug fix patches >>>> during the QEMU hard freeze phase: This test can now be used to >>>> trigger lots of introspection bugs that we were not aware of yet. >>>> I think most of the bugs are due to wrong handling of instance_init >>>> vs. realize functions. >>> >>> Yes, that's a common class of bugs. There's little guidance on what >>> kind of work belongs where, and plenty of bad examples. >> >> I think we urgently need a file in doc/devel/ that describes the vario= us >> states / functions of a device, where we should properly describe the >> differences between instance_init and realize. ... I'll try to come up >> with something when I've got some spare time (unless somebody else >> volunteers to do that first). >=20 > Please do. >=20 > Widen the scope from just TYPE_DEVICE to all of QOM? I don't have that much experience with QOM yet that I'd dare to write a doc about it. Would you maybe be interested in writing something up about QOM? Thomas