qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 1/7] tests: Fix how qom-test is run


From: Andreas Färber
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 1/7] tests: Fix how qom-test is run
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:06:13 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0

Am 28.09.2015 um 22:08 schrieb Markus Armbruster:
> We want to run qom-test for every architecture, without having to
> manually add it to every architecture's list of tests.  Commit 3687d53
> accomplished this by adding it to every architecture's list
> automatically.
> 
> However, some architectures inherit their tests from others, like this:
> 
>     check-qtest-x86_64-y = $(check-qtest-i386-y)
>     check-qtest-microblazeel-y = $(check-qtest-microblaze-y)
>     check-qtest-xtensaeb-y = $(check-qtest-xtensa-y)
> 
> For such architectures, we ended up running the (slow!) test twice.
> Commit 2b8419c attempted to avoid this by adding the test only when
> it's not already present.  Works only as long as we consider adding
> the test to the architectures on the left hand side *after* the ones
> on the right hand side: x86_64 after i386, microblazeel after
> microblaze, xtensaeb after xtensa.
> 
> Turns out we consider them in $(SYSEMU_TARGET_LIST) order.  Defined as
> 
>     SYSEMU_TARGET_LIST := $(subst -softmmu.mak,,$(notdir \
>        $(wildcard $(SRC_PATH)/default-configs/*-softmmu.mak)))
> 
> On my machine, this results in the oder xtensa, x86_64, microblazeel,
> microblaze, i386.  Consequently, qom-test runs twice for microblazeel
> and x86_64.
> 
> Replace this complex and flawed machinery with a much simpler one: add
> generic tests (currently just qom-test) to check-qtest-generic-y
> instead of check-qtest-$(target)-y for every target, then run
> $(check-qtest-generic-y) for every target.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <address@hidden>
> ---
>  tests/Makefile | 14 ++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Looks good to me,

Reviewed-by: Andreas Färber <address@hidden>

However one comment regarding your commit message: You missed that I
proposed a different patch before Peter committed his. I wonder whether
mine had the same issue...

BTW there's an old patch from Stefan H. on the list (that I have on my
queue to revisit, help appreciated), to make QTests more verbose even
without V=1.

Regards,
Andreas

-- 
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton; HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)



reply via email to

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