On 22/08/2017 10:47, Peter Maydell wrote: > 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...
You need to use KVM HV to have the problem, not KVM PR. Is that the case? Laurent
