Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/6] tests: Add network filter tests to the check-qtest-s390x list

[Thomas Huth]

On 17.08.2017 10:41, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:25:09 +0200
> Thomas Huth <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> With some small modifications, we can also use the the netfilter,
>> the fiter-mirror and the filter-redirector tests on s390x.
> 
> s/fiter/filter/

OK ... could you please fix that when picking up the patch (in case I do
not have to resend)?

>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  tests/Makefile.include         |  3 +++
>>  tests/test-filter-mirror.c     |  9 +++++++--
>>  tests/test-filter-redirector.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++------
>>  tests/test-netfilter.c         | 11 ++++++++++-
>>  4 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
> 
>> diff --git a/tests/test-filter-mirror.c b/tests/test-filter-mirror.c
>> index a1d5865..d569d27 100644
>> --- a/tests/test-filter-mirror.c
>> +++ b/tests/test-filter-mirror.c
>> @@ -25,6 +25,11 @@ static void test_mirror(void)
>>      char *recv_buf;
>>      uint32_t size = sizeof(send_buf);
>>      size = htonl(size);
>> +    const char *devstr = "e1000";
>> +
>> +    if (g_str_equal(qtest_get_arch(), "s390x")) {
>> +        devstr = "virtio-net-ccw";
>> +    }
> 
> I'm wondering if we could unify selection of the network device
> somehow. There's probably two cases:
> - Test a specific device. This obviously needs to be decided
>   individually.
> - Just use a functional network device. For s390x, this will be
>   virtio-net-ccw; for other architectures, this test uses e1000, while
>   one of the tests below uses rtl8139 (why?). A helper for that may be
>   useful.

Maybe ... OTOH, this likely increases also test coverage if we do not
use the same PCI NIC in all the tests...?

>>  
>>      ret = socketpair(PF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0, send_sock);
>>      g_assert_cmpint(ret, !=, -1);
> 
>> diff --git a/tests/test-filter-redirector.c b/tests/test-filter-redirector.c
>> index 69c663b..3afd411 100644
>> --- a/tests/test-filter-redirector.c
>> +++ b/tests/test-filter-redirector.c
>> @@ -57,6 +57,16 @@
>>  #include "qemu/error-report.h"
>>  #include "qemu/main-loop.h"
>>  
>> +static const char *get_devstr(void)
>> +{
>> +    if (g_str_equal(qtest_get_arch(), "s390x")) {
>> +        return "virtio-net-ccw";
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    return "rtl8139";
> 
> No problem with your patch, but I'm wondering why this does not use
> e1000. Special capabilities of rtl8139?

Maybe Zhang Chen can answer that question? (Now on CC: - forgot to do
that initially, sorry!)
But I guess it's just an arbitrary NIC that works on most of the
platforms (i.e. a normal PCI NIC)...?

>> +}
>> +
>> +
>>  static void test_redirector_tx(void)
>>  {
>>      int backend_sock[2], recv_sock;
> 
>> diff --git a/tests/test-netfilter.c b/tests/test-netfilter.c
>> index 8b5a9b2..2506473 100644
>> --- a/tests/test-netfilter.c
>> +++ b/tests/test-netfilter.c
>> @@ -182,6 +182,12 @@ static void remove_netdev_with_multi_netfilter(void)
>>  int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>  {
>>      int ret;
>> +    char *args;
>> +    const char *devstr = "e1000";
> 
> It's our old friend again :)
> 
>> +
>> +    if (g_str_equal(qtest_get_arch(), "s390x")) {
>> +        devstr = "virtio-net-ccw";
>> +    }
>>  
>>      g_test_init(&argc, &argv, NULL);
>>      qtest_add_func("/netfilter/addremove_one", add_one_netfilter);
>> @@ -191,10 +197,13 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>      qtest_add_func("/netfilter/remove_netdev_multi",
>>                     remove_netdev_with_multi_netfilter);
>>  
>> -    qtest_start("-netdev user,id=qtest-bn0 -device e1000,netdev=qtest-bn0");
>> +    args = g_strdup_printf("-netdev user,id=qtest-bn0 "
>> +                           "-device %s,netdev=qtest-bn0", devstr);
>> +    qtest_start(args);
>>      ret = g_test_run();
>>  
>>      qtest_end();
>> +    g_free(args);
>>  
>>      return ret;
>>  }
> 
> Even though I think we should deal with the questions above, having
> more tests for s390x is certainly a good idea. Thus,
> 
> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <address@hidden>

Thanks for the review,
 Thomas