On Donnerstag, 1. Oktober 2020 16:04:39 CEST Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> You're right, this is in fact also a problem for virtio-blk and virtio-
net:
> >> /* FIXME: every test using these two nodes needs to setup a
> >>
> >> * -drive,id=drive0 otherwise QEMU is not going to start.
> >>
On 01/10/20 14:15, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> On Donnerstag, 1. Oktober 2020 13:56:42 CEST Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 01/10/20 13:34, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
>>> Paolo, I'm back at square one after changing to single-device model as you
>>> suggested:
>>>
>>> GTest: run:
>>> /x86_64/pc/i44
On Donnerstag, 1. Oktober 2020 13:56:42 CEST Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 01/10/20 13:34, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> > Paolo, I'm back at square one after changing to single-device model as you
> > suggested:
> >
> > GTest: run:
> > /x86_64/pc/i440FX-pcihost/pci-bus-pc/pci-bus/virtio-9p-pci/pci-
On 01/10/20 13:34, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> Paolo, I'm back at square one after changing to single-device model as you
> suggested:
>
> GTest: run: /x86_64/pc/i440FX-pcihost/pci-bus-pc/pci-bus/virtio-9p-pci/pci-
> device/pci-device-tests/nop
> Run QEMU with: '-M pc -device virtio-9p-pci'
>
On Montag, 28. September 2020 18:38:00 CEST Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 28/09/20 15:35, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> >> As I said, the first two patches make total sense. They would be useful
> >> for testing both packed and split virtqueues, for example. However, I
> >> think the (useful) featur
On 28/09/20 15:35, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
>> As I said, the first two patches make total sense. They would be useful
>> for testing both packed and split virtqueues, for example. However, I
>> think the (useful) feature is being misused here.
>
> I haven't understood why my suggested mult-
On Montag, 28. September 2020 14:42:48 CEST Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 28/09/20 13:56, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> >> The implementation in patches 1 and 2 is reasonable, but what is the
> >> advantage of this as opposed to specifying the fsdev in the edge options
> >> for the test (similar to vi
On 28/09/20 13:56, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
>> The implementation in patches 1 and 2 is reasonable, but what is the
>> advantage of this as opposed to specifying the fsdev in the edge options
>> for the test (similar to virtio-net)? I was expecting both
>> virtio-9p-device-synth and virtio-9p-
On Montag, 28. September 2020 10:37:52 CEST Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 27/09/20 12:40, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> > +qos_node_consumes("virtio-9p-device-local", "virtio-bus", &opts);
> > +qos_node_produces("virtio-9p-device-local", "virtio-local");
>
> This should produce "virtio", simi
On 27/09/20 12:40, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> +qos_node_consumes("virtio-9p-device-local", "virtio-bus", &opts);
> +qos_node_produces("virtio-9p-device-local", "virtio-local");
This should produce "virtio", similar to what I remarked in the previous
patch.
> +qos_node_produces("vi
On 27/09/20 12:40, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> +qos_node_produces("virtio-9p-device-synth", "virtio-synth");
This is wrong, since it disables the generic virtio device tests (right
now there is only one in virtio-test.c).
Paolo
Rename all 9pfs tests and devices they create for running their tests
from 'virtio*' -> 'virtio*-synth'.
In order for the tests still to work after this renaming, use the
newly added function qos_node_create_driver_named() instead of
qos_node_create_driver(). That new function allows to assign a n
12 matches
Mail list logo
