[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC PATCH v5 7/9] target/avocado: Pass parameters to migration test
From: |
Fabiano Rosas |
Subject: |
Re: [RFC PATCH v5 7/9] target/avocado: Pass parameters to migration test on aarch64 |
Date: |
Mon, 23 Jan 2023 14:26:34 -0300 |
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org> writes:
> On 23/1/23 15:37, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
>> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org> writes:
>>
>>> On 20/1/23 19:48, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
>>>> The migration tests are currently broken for an aarch64 host because
>>>> the tests pass no 'machine' and 'cpu' options on the QEMU command
>>>> line. Most other architectures define a default value in QEMU for
>>>> these options, but arm does not.
>>>
>>> There was some discussions around that in the past:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20190621153806.13489-1-wainersm@redhat.com/
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/CAFEAcA9NBu+L4wHfkLTv93wy90wjnV05EZ12PT6PmLjdZ5h_YA@mail.gmail.com/
>>
>> There's more than one topic being discussed, specially in this last
>> thread, but here's my two cents.
>>
>> About defaults: It's probably best to be explicit in tests. And if we
>> wanted, have a separate test to make sure the lack of an option still
>> does what it's expected, either outputting a message or behaving the
>> same as the explicit version.
>>
>> About host architecture-specific tests: Unless we're talking about KVM,
>> I see no point. Having to change hosts to test agnostic features makes
>> no sense (the migration test is one example).
>>
>> About generic tests: If a feature is required to behave the same for all
>> architectures/machines/cpus then sure. But most low level stuff would be
>> quite dependent on specifics.
>>
>>>> Add these options to the test class in case the test is being executed
>>>> in an aarch64 host.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what we are aiming to test here.
>>>
>>> Migration in general? If so, any random machine should work.
>>> By hardcoding the 'virt' machine, at least this test is reproducible.
>>
>> Yeah, I cannot say for sure there isn't some machine property that gets
>> transferred during migration. It seemed more conservative to define a
>> specific one.
>
> Why did you choose 'virt' and not 'xlnx-versal-virt' or 'sbsa-ref'?
It is the only one guaranteed to be present with both TCG and KVM.
- [RFC PATCH v5 6/9] tests/tcg: Do not build/run TCG tests if TCG is disabled, (continued)
- [RFC PATCH v5 6/9] tests/tcg: Do not build/run TCG tests if TCG is disabled, Fabiano Rosas, 2023/01/20
- [RFC PATCH v5 3/9] target/arm: Use "max" as default cpu for the virt machine with KVM, Fabiano Rosas, 2023/01/20
- [RFC PATCH v5 4/9] tests/qtest: arm-cpu-features: Match tests to required accelerators, Fabiano Rosas, 2023/01/20
- [RFC PATCH v5 5/9] tests/qtest: Restrict tpm-tis-devices-{swtpm}-test to CONFIG_TCG, Fabiano Rosas, 2023/01/20
- [RFC PATCH v5 7/9] target/avocado: Pass parameters to migration test on aarch64, Fabiano Rosas, 2023/01/20
[RFC PATCH v5 8/9] arm/Kconfig: Always select SEMIHOSTING when TCG is present, Fabiano Rosas, 2023/01/20
[RFC PATCH v5 9/9] arm/Kconfig: Do not build TCG-only boards on a KVM-only build, Fabiano Rosas, 2023/01/20