qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 42/43] piix4: add acpi pci hotplug support


From: Anthony Liguori
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 42/43] piix4: add acpi pci hotplug support
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:52:35 -0700

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> wrote:
> Il 17/10/2013 00:03, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:26:11PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> Il 16/10/2013 20:37, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
>>>> Gleb, Paolo, what do you think? OK to merge kvm unit test
>>>> into qemu? It depends on qemu anyway, in-tree will make it easier.
>>>> Maybe someone's looking at this already?
>>>
>>> I think merging KVM unit tests doesn't make much sense because, with
>>> some small exceptions, it is mostly a test or a benchmark for KVM.
>>
>> But why keep them separate? They need qemu to work, don't they?
>
> Not necessarily.  They need a userspace component of course, but most of
> them do not need something as big as QEMU.  Most tests, perhaps all,
> only write to a handful of ports and use no BIOS services.
>
>>> What
>>> may make sense is to have a quick way to run autotest on a QEMU tree,
>>> with a subset of testcases that doesn't take too much time (let's say <4
>>> hours)
>>
>> That's not really reasonable for make check though.
>
> Why not?  When I was working on GCC I usually ran a subset of the
> testsuite manually and then did a full run overnight.  I said <4 hours
> because it lets you do 2 runs (baseline and patched) while you sleep.
>
> However I agree it's more than we're used to, so I'd not put it under
> "make check".  Still, having it available from make would be nice.
>
>>> and is more or less guaranteed to pass.
>>
>> That's still the main challenge.
>
> Yep. :(
>
>>> qtest could at best host some sanity checks on the ACPI tables, which
>>> would catch the MCFG problems that Gerd reported on v5.
>>
>> Depends on how deep the test understands ACPI - the signature
>> was wrong I think.
>>
>> Note I was testing this too - comparing tables between
>> revisions. I just didn't notice that list of tables
>> to test included was generated by me on piix, so
>> MCFG wasn't tested.
>
> So we could have a qtest for sanity checking ACPI tables.  At least
> fw_cfg is one of the few components that has qtest infrastructure...  I
> don't think we need to do more than that though.  The set of sanity
> checks can start with a simple list of tables that "have to be there"
> for a given machine type.

I think we could reasonably attempt to validate ACPI tables across
machine versions.

Since this is qtest, we can even do things like use iasl to
disassemble the blobs on the host.  This could be pretty handy for
detecting compatibility issues across machine versions.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>
> Paolo



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]