On 22 August 2017 at 02:09, David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:18:07PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 16 August 2017 at 11:51, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > On 16/08/2017 10:26, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> >> Prefer to use the tcg accelarator if it is available: This is our only >> >> real smoke test for tcg, and fast enough to use it for that. >> > >> > I'm not sure this is required for 2.10. Yes, it means the coverage from >> > "make check" is worse, but that's it. >> >> Yes, I'd put it under "if we need to roll an rc4 anyway for >> some more significant bug we might as well put this in too, >> but it doesn't merit cutting rc4 by itself." > > It does entirely break "make check" on a ppc host. And that in turn > has held up my testing cycle for a couple of ppc regressions from 2.9 > that I was hoping to squeeze in. Does that change your calculations?
I have a PPC64 box in my standard set of build tests, and it runs 'make check' without problems... thanks -- PMM
