On 14/10/2019 13.21, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 11.10.2019 um 16:50 hat Thomas Huth geschrieben: >> The next patch is going to add some python-based tests to the "auto" >> group, and these tests require virtio-blk to work properly. Running >> iotests without virtio-blk likely does not make too much sense anyway, >> so instead of adding a check for the availability of virtio-blk to each >> and every test (which does not sound very appealing), let's rather add >> a check for this at the top level in the check-block.sh script instead >> (so that it is possible to run "make check" without the "check-block" >> part for qemu-system-tricore for example). >> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> >> --- >> tests/check-block.sh | 16 +++++++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/tests/check-block.sh b/tests/check-block.sh >> index 679aedec50..7582347ec2 100755 >> --- a/tests/check-block.sh >> +++ b/tests/check-block.sh >> @@ -26,10 +26,24 @@ if grep -q "CFLAGS.*-fsanitize" config-host.mak >> 2>/dev/null ; then >> exit 0 >> fi >> >> -if [ -z "$(find . -name 'qemu-system-*' -print)" ]; then >> +if [ -n "$QEMU_PROG" ]; then >> + qemu_prog="$QEMU_PROG" >> +else >> + for binary in *-softmmu/qemu-system-* ; do >> + if [ -x "$binary" ]; then >> + qemu_prog="$binary" >> + break >> + fi > > Wouldn't it be better to check the availability of virtio-blk here, so > that if the current binary doesn't support it, we keep searching and > maybe pick up a different binary that supports it?
That's a good idea, indeed, but then I also need to adjust the code in the "check" script accordingly. > Or actually, should we work with a whitelist? I don't think that a hard-coded list will work well: Since we introduced the Kconfig build system, it's now possible for example to also build an qemu-system-aarch64 binary that does not contain any of the boards that support virtio. So while virtio-blk is available by default in qemu-system-aarch64, some builds might not contain it. Thomas