On 22 August 2017 at 09:49, Laurent Vivier <lviv...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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?
I don't have access to KVM at all on that box, so it will be using TCG only. thanks -- PMM
