On 16.11.2016 13:37, Greg Kurz wrote: > On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 12:24:50 +0000 > "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilb...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> * Greg Kurz (gr...@kaod.org) wrote: >>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:39:31 +0100 >>> Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> 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. >>>> >>> >>> This patch addresses two issues actually: >>> - the annoying warning when running on a ppc64 guest on a non-ppc64 host >>> - the fact that KVM-PR seems to be currently broken >>> >>> I agree that the former makes sense, but what about the case of running >>> a x86 guest on a non-x86 host ?
Of course you also get these '"kvm" accelerator not found' messages there. But so far, I think nobody complained about that yet (only for ppc64 running on x86). And at least the test succeeds there - unlike with KVM-PR, where the test fails completely. >>> I'm still feeling uncomfortable with the KVM-PR case... is this a workaround >>> we want to keep until we find out what's going on or are we starting to >>> partially deprecate KVM PR ? In any case, I guess we should document this >>> and probably print some meaningful error message. >> >> This is certainly a work around for now, it doesn't suggest anything about >> deprecation. > > Well it doesn't suggest anything actually, it just silently skips KVM PR... > I would at least expect a comment in the code mentioning this is a > workaround and maybe an explicit warning for the user. If the user really > wants to run this test with KVM on ppc64, then she should ensure it is > KVM HV. Honestly, also considering the number of patches that Laurent already wrote here and never have been accepted, all this has become quite an ugly bike-shed painting discussion. My opinion: - If we want to properly test KVM (be it KVM-HV or KVM-PR), write a proper kvm-unit-test instead. I.e. I personally don't care if this test in QEMU is only run with TCG or with KVM. - The current status of "make check" is broken, since it does not work on KVM-PR. We've got to fix that before the release. That means I currently really don't care if we've spill out a warning message for KVM-PR here or not - sure, somebody just got to look at KVM-PR later, but that's IMHO off-topic for the test here in the QEMU context. So if you think that the patch for fixing this issue here with the QEMU test should look differently, please propose a different patch instead. I'm fine with every other approach as long as we get this fixed in time for QEMU 2.8. Thomas
