Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] iotests: Skip "make check-block" if QEMU does not support virtio-blk

[Max Reitz]

On 22.10.19 09:21, Thomas Huth wrote:
> The next patch is going to add some python-based tests to the "auto"
> group, and these tests require virtio-blk to work properly. Running
> iotests without virtio-blk likely does not make too much sense anyway,
> so instead of adding a check for the availability of virtio-blk to each
> and every test (which does not sound very appealing), let's rather add
> a check for this at the top level in the check-block.sh script instead
> (so that it is possible to run "make check" without the "check-block"
> part for qemu-system-tricore for example).
> 
> Reviewed-by: Max Reitz <address@hidden>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <address@hidden>
> ---
>  tests/check-block.sh | 16 +++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/check-block.sh b/tests/check-block.sh
> index 679aedec50..e9e2978818 100755
> --- a/tests/check-block.sh
> +++ b/tests/check-block.sh
> @@ -26,10 +26,24 @@ if grep -q "CFLAGS.*-fsanitize" config-host.mak 
> 2>/dev/null ; then
>      exit 0
>  fi
>  
> -if [ -z "$(find . -name 'qemu-system-*' -print)" ]; then
> +if [ -n "$QEMU_PROG" ]; then
> +    qemu_prog="$QEMU_PROG"
> +else
> +    for binary in *-softmmu/qemu-system-* ; do

Hm, I know I’ve already given my R-b, but looking at this again – what
if the user builds qemu for multiple targets?  Then this will just test
any target, whereas the iotests might test something else, because the
algorithm there is slightly different:

First, check $QEMU_PROG (same as here).

Second, check $build_iotests/qemu.  I think we can do this here, because
we know that $build_iotests is $PWD/tests/qemu-iotests (or invoking
./check below wouldn’t work).

Third, and this is actually important, I think, is that we first look
for the qemu that matches the host architecture (uname -m, with an
exception for ppc64).  I think we really should do that here, too.

Fourth, look for any qemu, as is done here.


So I think we could do without #2, but it probably doesn’t hurt to check
that, too.  I don’t think we should do without #3, though.

Max

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature