[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v26 00/20] i386 cleanup PART 2
From: |
Daniel P . Berrangé |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v26 00/20] i386 cleanup PART 2 |
Date: |
Mon, 8 Mar 2021 15:07:51 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/2.0.5 (2021-01-21) |
On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 03:57:29PM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 3/8/21 2:52 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> > On 3/8/21 2:27 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> >> Hi Claudio,
> >>
> >> On 3/8/21 1:57 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> anything else for me to do here?
> >>>
> >>> The latest rebased state of this series should be always available here:
> >>>
> >>> https://gitlab.com/hw-claudio/qemu/-/tree/i386_cleanup_8
> >>>
> >>> When it comes to the ARM cleanup series,
> >>> I would like to have the tests pass for ARM, before doing even more
> >>> changes, could you help me there Philippe?
> >>>
> >>> Maybe applying some of your changes on top would fix the failures? I
> >>> tried, for example with the arm-cpu-features ones, but it didn't work for
> >>> me..
> >>
> >> TBH I wrote these patches during my personal spare time and this
> >> became a real Pandora box that drained too much energy. I prefer
> >> to step back and focus on finishing smaller tasks before burning
> >> out. That said I appreciate your effort and am interested in
> >> following / reviewing your work.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Phil.
> >>
> >
> > Thanks Philippe for sharing this, and I agree completely, it is very
> > draining.
> >
> > The effort of making tests happy that run in artificial environments in
> > particular often feels to me
> > as too disconnected from actually ensuring that there is no real run time
> > regression.
> >
> > qtest_enabled() (implicitly, or explicitly via open-ended else statements)
> > is another painful variable to keep in mind in cpu and machine code, so it
> > is not helpful in my view.
> >
> > I'll try to push more to get the tests running again, if you have any
> > comment or idea, feel free to just point me in the right direction,
> > that is very valuable to me, even without working code.
>
> Basically I gave up after realizing from Daniel reviews that we need
> QMP commands to query QEMU at runtime its built-in features, so we
> have build-agnostic tests easier to maintain. I agree this is the
> best way to resolve this particular case, but also scale for various
> other cases.
Which patch / review are you referring to here ?
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
- [PATCH v26 17/20] i386: split off sysemu part of cpu.c, (continued)
- [PATCH v26 17/20] i386: split off sysemu part of cpu.c, Claudio Fontana, 2021/03/01
- [PATCH v26 19/20] target/i386: gdbstub: only write CR0/CR2/CR3/EFER for sysemu, Claudio Fontana, 2021/03/01
- [PATCH v26 20/20] i386: make cpu_load_efer sysemu-only, Claudio Fontana, 2021/03/01
- [PATCH v26 15/20] i386: split svm_helper into sysemu and stub-only user, Claudio Fontana, 2021/03/01
- Re: [PATCH v26 00/20] i386 cleanup PART 2, no-reply, 2021/03/01
- Re: [PATCH v26 00/20] i386 cleanup PART 2, Claudio Fontana, 2021/03/08
- Re: [PATCH v26 00/20] i386 cleanup PART 2, Alex Bennée, 2021/03/08