On 28/09/20 15:35, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: >> As I said, the first two patches make total sense. They would be useful >> for testing both packed and split virtqueues, for example. However, I >> think the (useful) feature is being misused here. > > I haven't understood why my suggested mult-device use case imposes a > misusage, > but okay, unless I hear different opinions, I'll prepare a v2 with that (IMO > hackish) CL fiddling instead in couple days or so.
Because in my opinion the backend in use is a property of the test rather than a property of the device. > @Greg: If that's the way to go, then I probably change the test names, e.g. > > "fs/version/basic" -> "synth/version/basic" > ... > "fs/create_dir" -> "local/create_dir" > > to be able to easily distinguish 'synth' driver tests from 'local' driver > tests, as they would then popup with the same device name in v2, unlike in > this v1 where they have separate device names. Right. >> Also, looking at future plans for qgraph, adding a generic "plug/socket" >> mechanism to QOSGraph was an idea that we couldn't do in time for GSoC. >> With that model, virtio-9p would provide a "socket" of type fsdev and >> the tests would have to provide a "plug" of the same type. Likewise >> there would be sockets of type disk or network. QOSGraphEdgeOpts fits >> better with that plan, compared to duplicating the devices. > > Sounds like that would require huge changes for all existing qtests on > initial > thought at least. Not huge, but yeah many tests would require changes. Paolo