On Sunday, 2023-02-05 at 11:50:52 +01, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 5/2/23 05:29, Alexander Bulekov wrote: >> As we are converting most fuzzers to rely on reboots to reset state, >> introduce an API to make sure reboots are invoked in a consistent >> manner. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alexander Bulekov <alx...@bu.edu> >> --- >> tests/qtest/fuzz/fuzz.c | 6 ++++++ >> tests/qtest/fuzz/fuzz.h | 2 +- >> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/tests/qtest/fuzz/fuzz.c b/tests/qtest/fuzz/fuzz.c >> index eb7520544b..c2d07a4c7e 100644 >> --- a/tests/qtest/fuzz/fuzz.c >> +++ b/tests/qtest/fuzz/fuzz.c >> @@ -51,6 +51,12 @@ void flush_events(QTestState *s) >> } >> } >> >> +void fuzz_reboot(QTestState *s) > > "reboot" sounds like guest software triggered. > IIUC from the fuzzer PoV this is more a "power-cycle" right?
I think that 'fuzz_reset()' or 'fuzz_reset_state()' would make sense, the primary purpose is to reset the fuzzing back to a known state, as said in the commit message. While right now it is a reboot, it may not always be, or could require something more. Thanks, Darren.
