On Tue, 2022-07-05 at 14:57 +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 at 14:04, Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > If we put this job in QEMU CI someone will have to be able to
> > interpret the results when it fails.
>
> In particular since this is qemu-user, the answer is probably
> at least some of the time going to be "oh, well, qemu-user isn't
> reliable
> if you do complicated things in the guest". I'd be pretty wary of our
> having
> a "pass a big complicated guest code test suite under linux-user
> mode"
> in the CI path.
>
> -- PMM
Actually exercising qemu-user is one of the goals here: just as an
example, one of the things that the test suite found was commit
9a12adc704f9 ("linux-user/s390x: Fix unwinding from signal handlers"),
so it's not only about the ISA.
At least for s390x, we've noticed that various projects use
qemu-user-based setups in their CI (either calling it explicitly, or
via binfmt-misc), and we would like these workflows to be reliable,
even if they try complicated (within reason) things there.
Best regards,
Ilya
