On 08/14/2018 05:57 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 14/08/2018 17:43, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 08/14/2018 05:33 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 14/08/2018 16:46, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>> When running qtests with -nodefaults, we are not interested in
>>>> these 'XYZ has no peer' messages.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> vl.c | 3 +--
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
>>>> index 16b913f..7055df3 100644
>>>> --- a/vl.c
>>>> +++ b/vl.c
>>>> @@ -4559,11 +4559,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp)
>>>> * (2) CONFIG_SLIRP not set, in which case the implicit "-net nic"
>>>> * sets up a nic that isn't connected to anything.
>>>> */
>>>> - if (!default_net) {
>>>> + if (!default_net && (!qtest_enabled() || has_defaults)) {
>>>> net_check_clients();
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why does it have no peer? Not a nack, just curiosity.
>>
>> The machines which emulate an embedded system often always create a NIC
>> (since it is hard-wired on the board, not optional). But since there is
>> no back-end on the host side with "-nodefaults", the net_check_clients()
>> function complains in this case.
>
> Ok, the has_defaults test then makes sense. Is the qtest_enabled() part
> still needed, or is the message unnecessary even in normal operation?
I think it is still needed, since you could also screw up your command
line parameters after specifying -nodefaults (e.g. "-nodefaults -net
nic" without giving an additional "-net user" or something similar).
Thomas
