On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 09:16:01AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 12/03/2021 00.11, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > Introduce the qtest_probe_accel() method which allows > > to query at runtime if a QEMU instance has an accelerator > > built-in. > > > > Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> > > --- > > tests/qtest/libqos/libqtest.h | 9 +++++++++ > > tests/qtest/libqtest.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/tests/qtest/libqos/libqtest.h b/tests/qtest/libqos/libqtest.h > > index a68dcd79d44..ebedb82ec98 100644 > > --- a/tests/qtest/libqos/libqtest.h > > +++ b/tests/qtest/libqos/libqtest.h > > @@ -763,6 +763,15 @@ void qmp_expect_error_and_unref(QDict *rsp, const char > > *class); > > */ > > bool qtest_probe_child(QTestState *s); > > +/** > > + * qtest_probe_accel: > > + * @s: QTestState instance to operate on. > > + * @name: Accelerator name to check for. > > + * > > + * Returns: true if the accelerator is built in. > > + */ > > +bool qtest_probe_accel(QTestState *s, const char *name); > > Maybe better qtest_has_accel() ? ... that makes it clear right from the > start what the return type is about.
It looks like qtest_probe_accel() is getting used in contexts in the following patches that would be better suited with an "enabled" API qtest_accel_enabled(s, accel_name) So, I think we should create that interface. Do we also need a qtest_has_accel()? Does it matter which ones have been compiled in when they're not active? (Hmm, 'active' might be a better verb yet. qtest_accel_active() ?) Thanks, drew
