On 26.04.2018 13:45, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> writes:
[...]
>> @@ -260,6 +263,26 @@ static void test_abstract_interfaces(void)
>> qtest_end();
>> }
>>
>> +static void add_machine_test_case(const char *mname)
>> +{
>> + char *path, *args;
>> +
>> + /* Ignore blacklisted machines */
>> + if (g_str_equal("xenfv", mname) || g_str_equal("xenpv", mname)) {
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + path = g_strdup_printf("device/introspect/concrete-defaults-%s", mname);
>> + args = g_strdup_printf("-machine %s", mname);
>> + qtest_add_data_func(path, args, test_device_intro_concrete);
>
> This runs test_device_intro_concrete() with "-machine M" for all machine
> types M, in SPEED=slow mode.
>
>> + g_free(path);
>> +
>> + path = g_strdup_printf("device/introspect/concrete-nodefaults-%s",
>> mname);
>> + args = g_strdup_printf("-nodefaults -machine %s", mname);
>> + qtest_add_data_func(path, args, test_device_intro_concrete);
>
> This runs test_device_intro_concrete() with "-nodefaults -machine M" for
> all machine types M, in SPEED=slow mode.
>
> Has "without -nodefaults" exposed additional bugs?
After testing this with all machines, I had to discover that
"-nodefaults" does not work so easily: A lot of the embedded machines
(especially the ARM machines) simply refuse to work with "-nodefaults"
and exit immediately instead. E.g.:
$ arm-softmmu/qemu-system-arm -nodefaults -nographic -M n810,accel=qtest
qemu-system-arm: missing SecureDigital device
So we'd either need a rather big black list for the machines that do not
work, or simply drop the "-nodefaults" tests from this patch.
> Please mention "with and without -nodefaults" in the commit message.
>
> I'd try "with -nodefaults" before "without", because "with" is the
> simpler test case.
For most boards, it seems rather to be the more "difficult" setting
since most boards are only tested without "-nodefaults" obviously.
>> + g_free(path);
>> +}
>> +
>> int main(int argc, char **argv)
>> {
>> g_test_init(&argc, &argv, NULL);
>> @@ -268,8 +291,12 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>> qtest_add_func("device/introspect/list-fields", test_qom_list_fields);
>> qtest_add_func("device/introspect/none", test_device_intro_none);
>> qtest_add_func("device/introspect/abstract",
>> test_device_intro_abstract);
>> - qtest_add_func("device/introspect/concrete",
>> test_device_intro_concrete);
>> qtest_add_func("device/introspect/abstract-interfaces",
>> test_abstract_interfaces);
>> + qtest_add_data_func("device/introspect/concrete", g_strdup(common_args),
>> + test_device_intro_concrete);
>
> This runs test_device_intro_concrete() with "-nodefaults -machine
> none". Duplicate in SPEED=slow mode?
Yes, it's a duplicate, we should skip that in SPEED=slow mode.
Thomas
