On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 15:54:38 +0200 Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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 ... What about defining a per-arch default virtio transport and pointing to that? This still allows us to explicitly test virtio-pci on s390x later. > > >> > >> 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. Yes. virtio will probably fill the 'reasonable device' place quite well, in any case.
