On 4/19/21 12:29 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 19/04/2021 12.24, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>> On 4/19/21 12:22 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> On 16/04/2021 18.27, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>>>> Skip the test_device_intro_concrete for now for ARM KVM-only build,
>>>> as on ARM we currently build devices for ARM that are not
>>>> compatible with a KVM-only build.
>>>>
>>>> We can remove this workaround when we fix this in KConfig etc,
>>>> and we only list and build machines that are compatible with KVM
>>>> for KVM-only builds.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Claudio Fontana <cfont...@suse.de>
>>>> Cc: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> tests/qtest/device-introspect-test.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tests/qtest/device-introspect-test.c
>>>> b/tests/qtest/device-introspect-test.c
>>>> index bbec166dbc..1ff15e2247 100644
>>>> --- a/tests/qtest/device-introspect-test.c
>>>> +++ b/tests/qtest/device-introspect-test.c
>>>> @@ -329,12 +329,30 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>>> qtest_add_func("device/introspect/none", test_device_intro_none);
>>>> qtest_add_func("device/introspect/abstract",
>>>> test_device_intro_abstract);
>>>> qtest_add_func("device/introspect/abstract-interfaces",
>>>> test_abstract_interfaces);
>>>> +
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * XXX currently we build also boards for ARM that are incompatible
>>>> with KVM.
>>>> + * We therefore need to check this explicitly, and only test virt for
>>>> kvm-only
>>>> + * arm builds.
>>>> + * After we do the work of Kconfig etc to ensure that only
>>>> KVM-compatible boards
>>>> + * are built for the kvm-only build, we could remove this.
>>>> + */
>>>> +#ifndef CONFIG_TCG
>>>> + {
>>>> + const char *arch = qtest_get_arch();
>>>> + if (strcmp(arch, "arm") == 0 || strcmp(arch, "aarch64") == 0) {
>>>> + goto add_machine_test_done;
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>>>> +#endif /* !CONFIG_TCG */
>>>> if (g_test_quick()) {
>>>> qtest_add_data_func("device/introspect/concrete/defaults/none",
>>>> g_strdup(common_args),
>>>> test_device_intro_concrete);
>>>> } else {
>>>> qtest_cb_for_every_machine(add_machine_test_case, true);
>>>> }
>>>> + goto add_machine_test_done;
>>>
>>> That last goto does not make much sense, since the label is right below.
>>
>> It is necessary to remove the warning that is otherwise produced about the
>> unused label IIRC.
>
> Ah, ok.
>
> Alternatively, you could maybe also drop the label completely and simply
> write the #ifndef block above like this (note the "else"):
>
> #ifndef CONFIG_TCG
> const char *arch = qtest_get_arch();
> if (!strcmp(arch, "arm") || !strcmp(arch, "aarch64")) {
> /* Do nothing */
> }
> else
> #endif /* !CONFIG_TCG */
>
> ... not sure what's nicer, though.
>
> Thomas
>
Indeed, I tried a couple of combinations, in the end to me the less confusing
was the goto one,
the #ifdef containing an open else is in my opinion worse, more error-prone,
but I am open to additional comments/ideas.
Thanks,
Claudio
