Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/4] add "make check"

[Kevin Wolf]

Am 26.10.2011 22:49, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On 10/25/2011 10:22 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 25.10.2011 17:03, schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
>> I think qemu-iotests could be considered an instance of B)
>>
>>> C) Functional tests that just need to run a small binary with no OS
>>>     installed in the guest, but running a fully-feature qemu process.
>>>     - The tests in the 'tests' directory do this, right? kvm-unittests
>>>       does this, right?
>>
>> Not sure what test/ does, but for kvm-unittests yes. And this is also
>> what I was talking about.
> 
> Thinking more about this...
> 
> We could add a new '-x-test-server CHR' option.  When this option is added, 
> it 
> would do the following:
> 
> 1) Open CHR character device
> 2) Use /dev/shm for guest memory
> 3) Listen for connections on CHR
> 4) When something connects to CHR
>   a) reset device model
>   b) send /dev/shm fd over CHR
>   c) register CPU physical memory client
>      1. upon CPU physical memory changes, send the change info over CHR
>   d) instead of doing [kvm_]cpu_exec(), block reading on CHR
> 
> So when you launch qemu with -x-test-server, it'll sit there doing nothing 
> terribly useful.  But this lets you write a program that connects to CHR, and 
> then by mapping {out,in}[bwl] to RPCs over the connection, and accessing RAM 
> via 
> mmap()'ing the passed fd using the client mapping table, you can essentially 
> write kvm-unittest style tests while still having full access to libc.

IRQs need to go through the connection as well.

Oh, and you would finally have a C user for libqmp. The test cases
definitely need to be able to access the monitor. For example I would
really love to have test cases for the I/O error paths that stop the VM
(or actually it's the resume that must be tested).

> And since each test program can reset QEMU after running, you could very 
> nicely 
> tie into something like gtest as a unit test framework.  I think it's pretty 
> appealing from a debugability perspective too.
> 
> It also means that it's possible to have 100% C test cases such that you 
> could 
> still build something like ppc64-softmmu and run it against the written test 
> cases without having to really understand ppc64 assembly or have a ppc64 
> build 
> environment (to generate native binaries to run under ppc64 TCG).
> 
> I think this could work out fairly well as a unit test framework.

Sounds great, where are the patches? ;-)

Kevin