On 15/05/20 12:51, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>> If a qtest is feasible, yes, I think we should require one for new
>> devices.
> qtest is not feasible, at least not for all kinds of devices. You can't
> talk to usb devices for example, and changing that effectively requires
> writing uhci/ohci/ehci/xhc
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:11:17PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 07/04/2020 12.59, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Following Markus thread on deprecating unmaintained (untested) code
> > (machines) [1] and the effort done to gather the information shared in
> > the replies [2],
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:11:17PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 07/04/2020 12.59, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Following Markus thread on deprecating unmaintained (untested) code
> > (machines) [1] and the effort done to gather the information shared in
> > the replies [2], a
On 07/04/2020 12.59, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Following Markus thread on deprecating unmaintained (untested) code
> (machines) [1] and the effort done to gather the information shared in
> the replies [2], and the various acceptance tests added, is it
> feasible to require for th
