[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [ANNOUNCE] qemu-test: a set of tests scripts for QEMU

From: Anthony Liguori
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [ANNOUNCE] qemu-test: a set of tests scripts for QEMU
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 12:33:24 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110922 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.15

On 12/29/2011 11:22 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 29 December 2011 16:36, Avi Kivity<address@hidden>  wrote:
Yes; but using Linux limits you to what it exposes (of course Linux
exposes quite a lot, so that's mostly a non issue; but we'll have

Actually IME Linux is pretty conservative about how it uses devices.
A lot of the ARM device models have gaping holes in their emulation
which we've never needed to fix because Linux simply doesn't use
those features (eg the PL080 DMA controller which doesn't actually
implement DMA!)

I think for devices what would be particularly useful would be
if you can write a (simple) test for something at the register
level, which generates an image which you can run on the real
hardware as well as on QEMU. Then you can confirm that your test
case is correct. Otherwise the tests are just going to bake in the
same assumptions/misconceptions about what the hardware does as
the QEMU model.

I think that could be useful, but it orthogonal to what we need for Test Driven Development.

The problem today is that it is very hard to make broad changes in QEMU simply because it's so difficult to know whether you're breaking another target. Look at the challenges around merging the memory API.

We need a simple way that a developer can sanity check that they've not broken other targets and all of the various devices that we support.

My guess is that a serious attempt at tests covering all the
functionality of a device is probably approximately doubling
the effort required for a device model, incidentally. A
half-hearted attempt probably doesn't buy you much over
automating "boot the guest OS and prod its driver".

Right, but "boot the guest OS and prod its driver" is very useful particularly if it can cover all of the various targets we support.

I don't think we should focus much on qtest for non-x86 targets. I mean, if you are interested in it for ARM, fantastic, but I don't think we would mandate it.

For x86, it's reasonable to have stricter requirements on testing, particularly for new devices.

FWIW, I expect virtio-scsi to be the first guinea pig here... I believe Stefan has already started looking at writing some qtest based tests for virtio-scsi.


Anthony Liguori

-- PMM

reply via email to

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