Re: [PATCH-for-7.0 v4 08/11] tests/unit/test-smp-parse: Add 'smp-without-dies-valid' machine type

["wangyanan (Y)" <wangyanan55@huawei.com>]

On 2021/11/17 16:08, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> Hi Yanan,
>
> On 11/17/21 08:37, wangyanan (Y) wrote:
>> On 2021/11/15 22:58, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> Keep the common TYPE_MACHINE class initialization in
>>> machine_base_class_init(), make it abstract, and move
>>> the non-common code to a new class: "smp-without-dies-valid".
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>    tests/unit/test-smp-parse.c | 19 +++++++++++++++----
>>>    1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tests/unit/test-smp-parse.c b/tests/unit/test-smp-parse.c
>>> index dfe7f1313b0..90a249fe8c8 100644
>>> --- a/tests/unit/test-smp-parse.c
>>> +++ b/tests/unit/test-smp-parse.c
>>> @@ -478,13 +478,19 @@ static void machine_base_class_init(ObjectClass
>>> *oc, void *data)
>>>    {
>>>        MachineClass *mc = MACHINE_CLASS(oc);
>>>    +    mc->smp_props.prefer_sockets = true;
>>> +
>>> +    mc->name = g_strdup(SMP_MACHINE_NAME);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void machine_without_dies_valid_class_init(ObjectClass *oc,
>>> void *data)
>>> +{
>>> +    MachineClass *mc = MACHINE_CLASS(oc);
>>> +
>>>        mc->min_cpus = MIN_CPUS;
>>>        mc->max_cpus = MAX_CPUS;
>>>    -    mc->smp_props.prefer_sockets = true;
>>>        mc->smp_props.dies_supported = false;
>>> -
>>> -    mc->name = g_strdup(SMP_MACHINE_NAME);
>>>    }
>>>      static void machine_without_dies_invalid_class_init(ObjectClass
>>> *oc, void *data)
>>> @@ -606,9 +612,14 @@ static const TypeInfo smp_machine_types[] = {
>>>        {
>>>            .name           = TYPE_MACHINE,
>>>            .parent         = TYPE_OBJECT,
>>> +        .abstract       = true,
>>>            .class_init     = machine_base_class_init,
>>>            .class_size     = sizeof(MachineClass),
>>>            .instance_size  = sizeof(MachineState),
>>> +    }, {
>>> +        .name           = MACHINE_TYPE_NAME("smp-without-dies-valid"),
>>> +        .parent         = TYPE_MACHINE,
>>> +        .class_init     = machine_without_dies_valid_class_init,
>>>        }, {
>>>            .name           =
>>> MACHINE_TYPE_NAME("smp-without-dies-invalid"),
>>>            .parent         = TYPE_MACHINE,
>>> @@ -629,7 +640,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>        g_test_init(&argc, &argv, NULL);
>>>          g_test_add_data_func("/test-smp-parse/generic/valid",
>>> -                         TYPE_MACHINE,
>>> +                         MACHINE_TYPE_NAME("smp-without-dies-valid"),
>>>                             test_generic_valid);
>>>        g_test_add_data_func("/test-smp-parse/generic/invalid",
>>>                             MACHINE_TYPE_NAME("smp-without-dies-invalid"),
>> After patch #7 and #8, we will have sub-tests as below. It looks nice,
>> but it will
>> probably be better to tweak "smp-without-dies-valid" to
>> "smp-generic-valid",
>> and "smp-without-dies-invalid" to "smp-generic-invalid", which will be more
>> consistent with the corresponding sub-test name.
>>
>> It's Ok now as we only have dies currently besides generic
>> sockets/cores/threads,
>> but "smp-without-dies-xxx" will become a bit confusing when new topology
>> members are introduced and tested here.
> OK I modified it and will respin once v6.2 is released.
>
> Also test_with_dies() should be split in 2 tests: valid/invalid;
> then smp_parse_test() should split tests further regarding the
> socket preference. But I'll let that to you,
Sure, I can do this in an appropriate time. But IMHO, I don't see a
strong necessity to split test_with_dies for now, as the valid/invalid
scenarios share the same class properties. We can probably keep it
as is until we have to split it.

As for socket preference, I can foresee code duplication if we split
all the tests into two parts just regarding the socket preference.
Isn't it clear enough to use current smp_parse_test() for each
test data sample? Do we have other concern here?
> I wanted to 1/ fix
> our Windows CI and 2/ show you how to structure the tests.
Understood. The test architecture is indeed improved a lot.
Thanks for your education. 😉

Thanks,
Yanan
> Regards,
>
> Phil.
>
> .