On 10/18/2016 10:03 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: > >> > On 17/10/2016 21:15, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: >>> >> * Peter Maydell (peter.mayd...@linaro.org) wrote: >>>> >>> On 17 October 2016 at 19:51, Dr. David Alan Gilbert >>>> >>> <dgilb...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>> * Peter Maydell (peter.mayd...@linaro.org) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> I've just noticed that qemu master running 'make check' prints >>>>>> >>>>> GTESTER tests/test-vmstate >>>>>> >>>>> Failed to load simple/primitive:b_1 >>>>>> >>>>> Failed to load simple/primitive:i64_2 >>>>>> >>>>> Failed to load simple/primitive:i32_1 >>>>>> >>>>> Failed to load simple/primitive:i32_1 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> but the test doesn't fail. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Can we either (a) silence this output if it's spurious or (b) have >>>>>> >>>>> it cause the test to fail if it's real (and fix the cause of the >>>>>> >>>>> failure ;-)), please? >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> The test (has always) tried loading truncated versions of the >>>>> >>>> migration >>>>> >>>> stream and made sure that it receives an error from >>>>> >>>> vmstate_load_state. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> However I just added an error so we can see which field fails to load >>>>> >>>> in a migration where we just used to get a 'migration has failed >>>>> >>>> with -22' >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Is there a way to silence error_report's that's already in use in >>>>> >>>> tests? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> We have some nasty hacks (like check for 'qtest_enabled()' before >>>> >>> calling error_report()) but we don't have anything in the >>>> >>> tree today that's a more coherent approach to the "test >>>> >>> deliberately provoked this error" problem. > I guess the "more coherent approach" would be some way to run a piece of > code with error reporting suppressed. > > For unit tests, a need to supress error reporting indicates the code > under test should perhaps error_setg() instead of error_report(). > Unlikely to completely eliminate the need to suppress error reporting, > though. > +1
For this particular case, I think it is viable too. Halil
