On 26/06/30 10:08AM, Nikhil Kumar Singh wrote:
> Hi Aditya,
>
> One comment below regarding test coverage.
>
> On 23/06/26 19:49, Aditya Gupta wrote:
> > @@ -548,7 +548,7 @@ static void test_xive(void)
> > {
> > QTestState *qts;
> > - qts = qtest_initf("-M powernv10 -smp %d,cores=1,threads=%d -nographic "
> > + qts = qtest_initf("-M powernv11 -smp %d,cores=1,threads=%d -nographic "
> > "-nodefaults -serial mon:stdio -S "
> > "-d guest_errors -trace '*xive*'",
> > SMT, SMT);
> By replacing the hardcoded machine type here instead of testing both,
> QEMU will no longer exercise the XIVE2 path on Power10.
>
> If a future change breaks the Power10 machine initialization while
> Power11 continues to work, this test would still pass.
>
> Would it make sense to run this test for both `powernv10` and
> `powernv11`, similar to how the SPI qtest iterates over the supported
> machines?
Since power11's interrupt controller is the same as power10, power10's
xive breakage should break power11 too.
But I get it, safer to have both, will do it in v4.
Thanks,
- Aditya G
>
> Thanks,
> Nikhil
