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

[Thomas Huth]

On 27.04.2018 02:34, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 01:54:43PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> The infrastructure for Python-based tests might take a while to
> be included, as I'm busy with other stuff right now.  I wouldn't
> mind including this patch, as long as you don't mind seeing it
> deleted after we reimplement it in Python.

Fine for me.

 Thomas