On Wed, 2023-08-16 at 13:33 +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: > > Ilya Leoshkevich <i...@linux.ibm.com> writes: > > > On Tue, 2023-08-15 at 15:51 +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: > > > This isn't directly called by our CI and because it doesn't run > > > via > > > our run-test.py script does things slightly differently. Lets > > > remove > > > it as we have plenty of working in-tree tests now for various > > > aspects > > > of gdbstub. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> > > > --- > > > tests/guest-debug/test-gdbstub.py | 177 ------------------------ > > > ---- > > > -- > > > 1 file changed, 177 deletions(-) > > > delete mode 100644 tests/guest-debug/test-gdbstub.py > > > > There doesn't seem to be a hbreak test elsewhere, but according to > > a > > comment in tcg/multiarch/gdbstub/memory.py it would be mapped to a > > normal break anyway. > > It is for TCG but for other accelerators there will be different > handling (although I'm fairly sure only x86 and aarch64 are currently > plumbed to use the CPUs hbreak bits on KVM). > > However this particular script was a very early addition when I was > testing stuff manually with images I'd built on my system. If we want > to > exercise the gdbstub for accelerators it might be better porting the > test to avocado?
That would be good, yes. I was always wondering if the TCG sotfmmu tests could be used to test the other accelerators? At least for s390x there is nothing TCG-specific there (besides that they try to trigger TCG-specific problems), and I sometimes run them manually with KVM as a sanity check. > > > > > Acked-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <i...@linux.ibm.com> > >
