On 14/08/2018 18:01, Thomas Huth wrote:
> 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).
True. Though it cannot happen with -nic, so another possibility is to
give it only if -net was used?
Paolo
Paolo
