On 08/14/2018 06:03 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 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?
Sorry, I don't quite get you ... this is a generic check in vl.c, how
should this code know whether the NICs have been specified with -nic or
-net?
Thomas
