Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 1/7] tests: Fix how qom-test is run

[Markus Armbruster]

Andreas Färber <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 28.09.2015 um 22:08 schrieb Markus Armbruster:
>> We want to run qom-test for every architecture, without having to
>> manually add it to every architecture's list of tests.  Commit 3687d53
>> accomplished this by adding it to every architecture's list
>> automatically.
>> 
>> However, some architectures inherit their tests from others, like this:
>> 
>>     check-qtest-x86_64-y = $(check-qtest-i386-y)
>>     check-qtest-microblazeel-y = $(check-qtest-microblaze-y)
>>     check-qtest-xtensaeb-y = $(check-qtest-xtensa-y)
>> 
>> For such architectures, we ended up running the (slow!) test twice.
>> Commit 2b8419c attempted to avoid this by adding the test only when
>> it's not already present.  Works only as long as we consider adding
>> the test to the architectures on the left hand side *after* the ones
>> on the right hand side: x86_64 after i386, microblazeel after
>> microblaze, xtensaeb after xtensa.
>> 
>> Turns out we consider them in $(SYSEMU_TARGET_LIST) order.  Defined as
>> 
>>     SYSEMU_TARGET_LIST := $(subst -softmmu.mak,,$(notdir \
>>        $(wildcard $(SRC_PATH)/default-configs/*-softmmu.mak)))
>> 
>> On my machine, this results in the oder xtensa, x86_64, microblazeel,
>> microblaze, i386.  Consequently, qom-test runs twice for microblazeel
>> and x86_64.
>> 
>> Replace this complex and flawed machinery with a much simpler one: add
>> generic tests (currently just qom-test) to check-qtest-generic-y
>> instead of check-qtest-$(target)-y for every target, then run
>> $(check-qtest-generic-y) for every target.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  tests/Makefile | 14 ++++++++------
>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> Looks good to me,
>
> Reviewed-by: Andreas Färber <address@hidden>
>
> However one comment regarding your commit message: You missed that I
> proposed a different patch before Peter committed his. I wonder whether
> mine had the same issue...

I checked git history, I didn't check mailing list history :)

I just had a peek, but can't find anything.  I'm happy to improve my
commit message, but I need either data to work in or a specific
proposal.

> BTW there's an old patch from Stefan H. on the list (that I have on my
> queue to revisit, help appreciated), to make QTests more verbose even
> without V=1.

If you can give a pointer, I might be able to review.

Thanks!