On 17.08.2017 11:46, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 17.08.2017 10:53, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:25:10 +0200 >> Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> By using the "virtio-xxx" device name aliases instead of the >>> "virtio-xxx-pci" names, we can use this test on s390x, too, >>> to check that adding and deleting also works fine with the >>> virtio-ccw bus. >> >> I don't think we should leak the aliasing stuff into tests, but rather >> specify the transport on a per-architecture basis explicitly. (We might >> want to test virtio-pci on s390x in the future as well -- in addition >> to virtio-ccw, not replacing it.) > > I also remember that using virtio aliases should be avoided (e.g. we are > not supposed to introduce new ones)
Hmm, maybe the right way is to use virtio-xxx-device and hook it up to the preferred virtio bus of the current architecture? ... I'll ponder about that a little bit ... >> >> Also, the same question as for the previous patch: Is this supposed to >> test virtio explicitly, or do we just want a reasonable device? I think this just needs a reasonable device - but since we've got the same problem with the virtio tests later in this series again, it's maybe best to fix this here in the same way, I guess. Thomas
