Re: [RFC PATCH v5 7/9] target/avocado: Pass parameters to migration test on aarch64

[Juan Quintela]

Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 23/1/23 15:37, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
>> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org> writes:
>> 
>>> On 20/1/23 19:48, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
>>>> The migration tests are currently broken for an aarch64 host because
>>>> the tests pass no 'machine' and 'cpu' options on the QEMU command
>>>> line. Most other architectures define a default value in QEMU for
>>>> these options, but arm does not.
>>>
>>> There was some discussions around that in the past:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20190621153806.13489-1-wainersm@redhat.com/
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/CAFEAcA9NBu+L4wHfkLTv93wy90wjnV05EZ12PT6PmLjdZ5h_YA@mail.gmail.com/
>> There's more than one topic being discussed, specially in this last
>> thread, but here's my two cents.
>> About defaults: It's probably best to be explicit in tests. And if
>> we
>> wanted, have a separate test to make sure the lack of an option still
>> does what it's expected, either outputting a message or behaving the
>> same as the explicit version.
>> About host architecture-specific tests: Unless we're talking about
>> KVM,
>> I see no point. Having to change hosts to test agnostic features makes
>> no sense (the migration test is one example).
>> About generic tests: If a feature is required to behave the same for
>> all
>> architectures/machines/cpus then sure. But most low level stuff would be
>> quite dependent on specifics.
>> 
>>>> Add these options to the test class in case the test is being executed
>>>> in an aarch64 host.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what we are aiming to test here.
>>>
>>> Migration in general? If so, any random machine should work.
>>> By hardcoding the 'virt' machine, at least this test is reproducible.
>> Yeah, I cannot say for sure there isn't some machine property that
>> gets
>> transferred during migration. It seemed more conservative to define a
>> specific one.
>
> Why did you choose 'virt' and not 'xlnx-versal-virt' or 'sbsa-ref'?
>
> What does this test require? Any machine running KVM?
>
> Adding Juan and David for migration since I'm still confused trying
> to understand what we are trying to test here...

No clue really from my side either.

ARM machine types are a mystery.  But on one hand:
- arm is a sane architecture when there is no default machine
  learn x86, learn.
- I don't know either which one to use.

Later, Juan.

>>> I'd rather fix that generically as "if a test requires a default
>>> machine and the target doesn't provide any default, then SKIP the
>>> test". Then adding machine-specific tests. Can be done on top, so
>> I agree, but the only tests that should *require* a default are the
>> ones
>> that test the command line parsing or adjacent features. We could always
>> test "-machine foo" and then separately test that the lack of a machine
>> option still gives the Foo machine.
>> The fact that we sometimes use defaults to be able to have the
>> same-ish
>> command line for every case is more of a limitation of our testing
>> infrastructure in my opinion.