[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-ppc] [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] tests/device-introspect: Test de

From: Thomas Huth
Subject: Re: [Qemu-ppc] [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] tests/device-introspect: Test devices with all machines, not only with "none"
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:27:20 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0

On 26.04.2018 13:54, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Thomas Huth <address@hidden> writes:
> Actually, a worse offender in the "waste everybody's time via redunancy"
> department could be qom-test.

I guess we could also change the logic in qom-tester to only run with
all machines if we're in SPEED=slow mode, and rather only use the "none"
machine by default?

>> Anyway, do you think my patch here is useful and has a chance of getting
>> included? I.e. shall I re-spin this as a non-RFC patch? Or shall we
>> rather wait for Eduardo's python-based tests to get included into the
>> repository?
> I don't mind having make check SPEED=slow run more extensive tests.
> Assuming we actually run them at least once in a while, which seems
> doubtful.

If some developers (like myself) are running it at least every couple of
weeks manually, that's already much better than nothing!

>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <address@hidden>
>>>> ---
>>>>  In case someone wants to help with creating some bug fix patches
>>>>  during the QEMU hard freeze phase: This test can now be used to
>>>>  trigger lots of introspection bugs that we were not aware of yet.
>>>>  I think most of the bugs are due to wrong handling of instance_init
>>>>  vs. realize functions.
>>> Yes, that's a common class of bugs.  There's little guidance on what
>>> kind of work belongs where, and plenty of bad examples.
>> I think we urgently need a file in doc/devel/ that describes the various
>> states / functions of a device, where we should properly describe the
>> differences between instance_init and realize. ... I'll try to come up
>> with something when I've got some spare time (unless somebody else
>> volunteers to do that first).
> Please do.
> Widen the scope from just TYPE_DEVICE to all of QOM?

I don't have that much experience with QOM yet that I'd dare to write a
doc about it. Would you maybe be interested in writing something up
about QOM?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]