On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 02:26:05PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 10/16/19 2:21 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 02:05:24PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > > > +static void test_query_cpu_model_expansion_kvm(const void *data)
> > > > +{
> > > > + QTestState *qts;
> > > > +
> > > > + qts = qtest_init(MACHINE "-accel kvm -cpu host");
> > > > +
> > > > + assert_has_feature(qts, "host", "pmu");
> > >
> > > Have you tried this on a ARM host? I wanted to but don't have access to
> > > one
> > > :(
> > >
> >
> > Yes. All code in this series has been tested; covering these
> > configurations
> >
> > - TCG aarch64
> > - TCG arm
> > - KVM aarch64 without SVE
> > - KVM aarch64 with SVE
> > - compile tested arm code with CONFIG_KVM enabled
>
> OK, I'd appreciate if someone with ARM hardware can test:
>
> - KVM arm
>
Me too, but if nobody is testing on KVM arm then I guess we don't really
care if the test code has the correct expectations for KVM arm. If
somebody does eventually try this test on KVM arm then it will either
pass, meaning its expectations are correct, or fail, alerting us to the
fact that our expectations are incorrect. IOW, I don't intend to change
this test code for KVM arm unless somebody with the hardware does the
testing and can justify a change.
Thanks,
drew
