On 02.04.2018 21:34, John Snow wrote: > > > On 04/02/2018 02:39 PM, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 29.03.2018 20:28, John Snow wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 03/16/2018 01:39 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>> With one of my clean-up patches (see commit 1454509726719e0933c800), I >>>> recently accidentially broke the "-cdrom" parameter (more precisely >>>> "-drive if=scsi") on a couple of boards, since there was no error >>>> detected during the "make check" regression testing. This is clearly an >>>> indication that we are lacking tests in this area. >>>> So this small patch series now introduces some tests for CD-ROM drives: >>>> The first two patches introduce the possibility to check that booting >>>> from CD-ROM drives still works fine for x86 and s390x, and the third >>>> patch adds a test that certain machines can at least still be started >>>> with the "-cdrom" parameter (i.e. that test would have catched the >>>> mistake that I did with my SCSI cleanup patch). >>>> >>>> v2: >>>> - Use g_spawn_sync() instead of execlp() to run genisoimage >>>> - The "-cdrom" parameter test is now run on all architectures (with >>>> machine "none" for the machines that are not explicitly checked) >>>> - Some rewordings and improved comments here and there >>>> >>>> Thomas Huth (3): >>>> tests/boot-sector: Add magic bytes to s390x boot code header >>>> tests/cdrom-test: Test booting from CD-ROM ISO image file >>>> tests/cdrom-test: Test that -cdrom parameter is working >>>> >>>> tests/Makefile.include | 2 + >>>> tests/boot-sector.c | 9 +- >>>> tests/cdrom-test.c | 222 >>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 3 files changed, 230 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>> create mode 100644 tests/cdrom-test.c >>>> >>> >>> New file, but no edit to MAINTAINERS. >> >> Which section do you suggest? It tests IDE CD-ROMs, SCSI CD-ROMs, and >> even virtio-block (on s390x) ... so I have a hard time to decide where >> this should belong to... >> >> Thomas >> > > I was hoping you'd figure it out, but fine :D > > You can stick it under my section if you want, but I'll probably defer > to you if the s390x parts break.
Ok, thanks. But in the long run, we might even need a generic "QTESTS" section in the MAINTAINERS file, since most of the qtests are currently not listed there. And while we're at it, we should maybe also move the qtests to a separate folder tests/qtests/ or so, so that it is clearer which of the tests is a qtest and which are something different. I'll try to come up with some patches once the hard freeze is over... Thomas