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?
Paolo
