On 16.11.2016 10:19, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>
>
> On 16/11/2016 09:39, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> The ppc64 postcopy test does not work with KVM-PR, and it is also
>> causing annoying warning messages when run on a x86 host. So let's
>> use KVM here only if we know that we're running with KVM-HV (which
>> automatically also means that we're running on a ppc64 host), and
>> fall back to TCG otherwise.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> tests/postcopy-test.c | 12 ++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/postcopy-test.c b/tests/postcopy-test.c
>> index d6613c5..dafe8be 100644
>> --- a/tests/postcopy-test.c
>> +++ b/tests/postcopy-test.c
>> @@ -380,17 +380,21 @@ static void test_migrate(void)
>> " -incoming %s",
>> tmpfs, bootpath, uri);
>> } else if (strcmp(arch, "ppc64") == 0) {
>> + const char *accel;
>> +
>> + /* On ppc64, the test only works with kvm-hv, but not with kvm-pr */
>> + accel = access("/sys/module/kvm_hv", F_OK) ? "tcg" : "kvm:tcg";
>
> why not "kvm" instead of "kvm:tcg"?
> If it doesn't work it should fail.
Yes, sounds right. I'll send a v2...
Thomas
