|
From: | Max Reitz |
Subject: | Re: [PULL 5/5] m68k: add Virtual M68k Machine |
Date: | Fri, 19 Mar 2021 11:57:15 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.0 |
On 19.03.21 11:51, Max Reitz wrote:
On 19.03.21 11:50, Laurent Vivier wrote:Le 19/03/2021 à 10:20, Max Reitz a écrit :On 19.03.21 07:32, Thomas Huth wrote:On 18/03/2021 18.28, Max Reitz wrote: [...]From that it follows that I don’t see much use in testing specific devices either. Say there’s a platform that provides both virtio-pci and virtio-mmio, the default (say virtio-pci) is fine for the iotests. I see little value in testing virtio-mmio as well. (Perhaps I’m short-sighted,though.)That's a fair point. But still, if someone compiled QEMU only with a target that only providedvirtio-mmio, the iotests should not fail when running "make check".To avoid that we continue playing whack-a-mole here in the future, maybe it would be better to restrict the iotests to the "main" targets only, e.g. modify check-block.sh so that the tests onlyrun with x86, aarch64, s390x and ppc64 ?Right, that would certainly be the simplest solution.The problem with that is we can't run the tests if target-list doesn't contain one of these targets.Yes, but is that really a problem?
I should add: The thing is, I wouldn’t really call it a problem. But still, as I said before somewhere in this thread, in theory we want to allow running the tests with every configuration. It’s just that it’s a tradeoff between how much it helps and how much work it is to make them work. (I gave s390 as an example, where effort was undertaken to make the iotests work.)
You’ve sent patches, so it seems you’re willing to invest the work. Sounds good to me, as long as we know it won’t rot.
Max
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |