Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] tests/device-introspect: Test devices with all machines, not only with "none"

[Markus Armbruster]

Thomas Huth <address@hidden> writes:

> On 17.04.2018 14:12, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Thomas Huth <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>> Many device introspection crashes only happen if you are using a
>>> certain machine, e.g.:
>>>
>>> $ ppc-softmmu/qemu-system-ppc -S -M ref405ep,accel=qtest -qmp stdio
>>> {"QMP": {"version": {"qemu": {"micro": 50, "minor": 11, "major": 2},
>>>  "package": "build-all"}, "capabilities": []}}
>>> { 'execute': 'qmp_capabilities' }
>>> {"return": {}}
>>> { 'execute': 'device-list-properties',
>>>   'arguments': {'typename': 'macio-newworld'}}
>>> Unexpected error in qemu_chr_fe_init() at chardev/char-fe.c:222:
>>> Device 'serial0' is in use
>>> Aborted (core dumped)
>>>
>>> To be able to catch these problems, let's extend the device-introspect
>>> test to check the devices on all machine types. Since this is a rather
>>> slow operation, the test is only run in "SPEED=slow" mode.
>> 
>> If the device works with one machine type, it has a decent chance to
>> work with others, too.  Thus, testing each device with every machine
>> type is overkill.  I appreciate having overkill as an option :)
>> 
>> What I'd like to see for a quick "make check" is testing each device
>> once.  That should flush out most bugs.  
>
> That's already done with the "none" machine.

I was too terse.  We test each device with -machine none for every
target.  Fine if that's quick enough.  If not, we might want to reduce
redundancy there.

Actually, a worse offender in the "waste everybody's time via redunancy"
department could be qom-test.

> Anyway, do you think my patch here is useful and has a chance of getting
> included? I.e. shall I re-spin this as a non-RFC patch? Or shall we
> rather wait for Eduardo's python-based tests to get included into the
> repository?

I don't mind having make check SPEED=slow run more extensive tests.
Assuming we actually run them at least once in a while, which seems
doubtful.

>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <address@hidden>
>>> ---
>>>  In case someone wants to help with creating some bug fix patches
>>>  during the QEMU hard freeze phase: This test can now be used to
>>>  trigger lots of introspection bugs that we were not aware of yet.
>>>  I think most of the bugs are due to wrong handling of instance_init
>>>  vs. realize functions.
>> 
>> Yes, that's a common class of bugs.  There's little guidance on what
>> kind of work belongs where, and plenty of bad examples.
>
> I think we urgently need a file in doc/devel/ that describes the various
> states / functions of a device, where we should properly describe the
> differences between instance_init and realize. ... I'll try to come up
> with something when I've got some spare time (unless somebody else
> volunteers to do that first).

Please do.

Widen the scope from just TYPE_DEVICE to all of QOM?