On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 04:34:44PM +0000, Alexandru Elisei wrote: > Hi Drew, > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 04:56:42PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 03:03:09PM +0000, Alexandru Elisei wrote: > > > Hi Drew, > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 04:53:29PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 04:43:13PM +0000, Alexandru Elisei wrote: > > > > > arm/arm64 supports running tests under kvmtool, but kvmtool's syntax > > > > > for > > > > > running a virtual machine is different than qemu's. To run tests > > > > > using the > > > > > automated test infrastructure, add a new test parameter, > > > > > kvmtool_params. > > > > > The parameter serves the exact purpose as qemu_params/extra_params, > > > > > but using > > > > > kvmtool's syntax. > > > > > > > > The need for qemu_params and kvmtool_params makes more sense to me now > > > > that I see the use in unittests.cfg (I wonder if we can't rearrange this > > > > series to help understand these things up front?). There's a lot of > > > > > > Certainly, I'll move it closer to the beginning of the series. > > > > > > > duplication, though, with having two sets of params since the test- > > > > specific inputs always have to be duplicated. To avoid the duplication > > > > I think we can use extra_params for '-append' and '--params' by > > > > parametrizing the option name for "params" (-append / --params) and then > > > > create qemu_opts and kvmtool_opts for extra options like --pmu, --mem, > > > > and irqchip. > > > > > > How about something like this (I am using selftest-setup as an example, > > > all the > > > other test definitions would be similarly modified): > > > > > > diff --git a/arm/unittests.cfg b/arm/unittests.cfg > > > index 2bdad67d5693..3009305ba2d3 100644 > > > --- a/arm/unittests.cfg > > > +++ b/arm/unittests.cfg > > > @@ -15,7 +15,9 @@ > > > [selftest-setup] > > > file = selftest.flat > > > smp = 2 > > > -extra_params = -m 256 -append 'setup smp=2 mem=256' > > > +test_args = setup smp=2 mem=256 > > > +qemu_params = -m 256 > > > +kvmtool_params = --mem 256 > > > groups = selftest > > > > > > I was thinking about using 'test_args' instead of 'extra_params' to avoid > > > any > > > confusion between the two, and to match how they are passed to a test > > > - they are in the argv main's argument. > > > > Yes, this looks good and test_args is better than my suggestion in the > > other mail of 'cmdline_options' since "cmdline" would be ambiguous with > > the test's cmdline and the vmm's cmdline. > > > > > > > > Also, should I change the test definitions for all the other > > > architectures? > > > It's not going to be possible for me to test all the changes. > > > > We should be safe with an s/extra_params/qemu_params/ change for all > > architectures and CI is pretty good, so we'd have good confidence > > if it passes, but, I think we should keep extra_params as a qemu_params > > alias anyway since it's possible that people have wrapped kvm-unit-tests > > in test harnesses which generate unittests.cfg files. > > Sounds good, split extra_params into test_args and qemu_params in all > unittests.cfg files, and keep extra_params as an alias for qemu_params. > > I was thinking that maybe I should send that as a separate patch, to make > sure it gets the visibility it deserves from the other maintainers, instead > of it being buried in a 18 patch series. What do you think?
Sounds good. Thanks, drew
