Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 42/43] piix4: add acpi pci hotplug support

[Paolo Bonzini]

Il 17/10/2013 00:03, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:26:11PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 16/10/2013 20:37, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
>>> Gleb, Paolo, what do you think? OK to merge kvm unit test
>>> into qemu? It depends on qemu anyway, in-tree will make it easier.
>>> Maybe someone's looking at this already?
>>
>> I think merging KVM unit tests doesn't make much sense because, with
>> some small exceptions, it is mostly a test or a benchmark for KVM.
> 
> But why keep them separate? They need qemu to work, don't they?

Not necessarily.  They need a userspace component of course, but most of
them do not need something as big as QEMU.  Most tests, perhaps all,
only write to a handful of ports and use no BIOS services.

>> What
>> may make sense is to have a quick way to run autotest on a QEMU tree,
>> with a subset of testcases that doesn't take too much time (let's say <4
>> hours)
> 
> That's not really reasonable for make check though.

Why not?  When I was working on GCC I usually ran a subset of the
testsuite manually and then did a full run overnight.  I said <4 hours
because it lets you do 2 runs (baseline and patched) while you sleep.

However I agree it's more than we're used to, so I'd not put it under
"make check".  Still, having it available from make would be nice.

>> and is more or less guaranteed to pass.
> 
> That's still the main challenge.

Yep. :(

>> qtest could at best host some sanity checks on the ACPI tables, which
>> would catch the MCFG problems that Gerd reported on v5.
> 
> Depends on how deep the test understands ACPI - the signature
> was wrong I think.
> 
> Note I was testing this too - comparing tables between
> revisions. I just didn't notice that list of tables
> to test included was generated by me on piix, so
> MCFG wasn't tested.

So we could have a qtest for sanity checking ACPI tables.  At least
fw_cfg is one of the few components that has qtest infrastructure...  I
don't think we need to do more than that though.  The set of sanity
checks can start with a simple list of tables that "have to be there"
for a given machine type.

Paolo