Re: [PATCH] ppc/pnv: Silence missing BMC warning with qtest

[Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>]

On 22/06/2020 10.24, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 6/22/20 9:53 AM, Greg Kurz wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 09:13:46 +0200
>> Cédric Le Goater <clg@kaod.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/22/20 8:57 AM, Greg Kurz wrote:
>>>> The device introspect test in qtest emits some warnings with the
>>>> the pnv machine types during the "nodefaults" phase:
>>>>
>>>> TEST check-qtest-ppc64: tests/qtest/device-introspect-test
>>>> qemu-system-ppc64: warning: machine has no BMC device. Use '-device
>>>> ipmi-bmc-sim,id=bmc0 -device isa-ipmi-bt,bmc=bmc0,irq=10' to define
>>>> one
>>>> qemu-system-ppc64: warning: machine has no BMC device. Use '-device
>>>> ipmi-bmc-sim,id=bmc0 -device isa-ipmi-bt,bmc=bmc0,irq=10' to define
>>>> one
>>>> qemu-system-ppc64: warning: machine has no BMC device. Use '-device
>>>> ipmi-bmc-sim,id=bmc0 -device isa-ipmi-bt,bmc=bmc0,irq=10' to define
>>>> one
>>>>
>>>> This is expected since the pnv machine doesn't create the internal
>>>> BMC simulator fallback when "-nodefaults" is passed on the command
>>>> line, but these warnings appear in ci logs and confuse people.
>>>>
>>>> Not having a BMC isn't recommended but it is still a supported
>>>> configuration, so a straightforward fix is to just silent this
>>>> warning when qtest is enabled.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 25f3170b0654 ("ppc/pnv: Create BMC devices only when defaults are enabled")
>>>> Reported-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Greg Kurz <groug@kaod.org>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Cédric Le Goater <clg@kaod.org>
>>>
>>> It looks good but could you reproduce ? 
>>>
>>
>> Yup, this test is only run in "slow" mode, eg:
>>
>>     make check-qtest-ppc64 SPEED=slow
> 
> Indeed:
> https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/jobs/603546723#L3337
> 
> See in .gitlab-ci.yml:
> 
>   build-disabled:
>    ...
>    - make -j"$JOBS"
>    - make -j"$JOBS" check-qtest SPEED=slow
> 
> Thomas, FYI this job is now timeouting most of the time.

Do you know why it got much slower? Have additional tests been added? Or
is there a performance regressions somewhere?

 Thomas