On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 05:20:25PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> 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.
Or we could try to test all machines anyway, but not consider it
an error if QEMU just does exit(1). Can the qtest C API give us
that information?
(Or we could simply let -nodefaults aside by now, and do this
after we implement this test case in Python.)
--
Eduardo
