From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47821) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bhDkj-00084l-3N for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2016 06:37:18 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bhDke-0005EK-Cl for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2016 06:37:17 -0400 Received: from mail-vk0-x233.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400c:c05::233]:33092) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bhDke-0005Dy-8l for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2016 06:37:12 -0400 Received: by mail-vk0-x233.google.com with SMTP id f76so96303763vke.0 for ; Tue, 06 Sep 2016 03:37:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <034e2688-83f6-23df-4e4f-da68ef1f580a@gmail.com> From: Peter Maydell Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 11:36:51 +0100 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v15 00/15] PTimer fixes/features and ARM MPTimer conversion List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Dmitry Osipenko Cc: QEMU Developers , qemu-arm , Peter Crosthwaite On 6 September 2016 at 11:32, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > On 06.09.2016 01:12, Peter Maydell wrote: >> I had a look at the rest of the patches, but to be honest I found >> it very difficult to figure out whether any of the changes were >> making the right changes or the wrong changes. So it's not clear >> to me that "silence the warning if running under qtest" is right: >> why is the warning being produced at all? >> > > The ptimer tests cover all ptimer behaviour cases, including the cases where > ptimer stops because of the error condition. This helps to ensure that further > applied ptimer patches (like new policies) are not affecting old ptimer (policy) > behaviour, including those error cases. So the warning message is being emitted > each time some of the ptimer tests checks the error condition behaviour. Oh, I see. Right, that's certainly OK to suppress warnings for. > If you have any thoughts on how to make review of this series easier for you, > please tell. I'm open to suggestions. > > BTW, I'm going to turn "Fix counter - 1 returned by ptimer_get_count for the > active timer" patch into a ptimer policy. The patch is correct for all of the > current ptimer users, however that "counter - 1" feature could be useful for > some of the future added timers, like nios2 timer [0], and could be already used > by some of the QEMU forks. So it might be better to retain old behaviour for the > default policy. Yes, if the patchset didn't change any behaviour for timers which didn't request a non-default policy that would definitely help in making me more confident it was safe. thanks -- PMM