Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 23/1/23 15:37, Fabiano Rosas wrote: >> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@linaro.org> writes: >> >>> On 20/1/23 19:48, Fabiano Rosas wrote: >>>> The migration tests are currently broken for an aarch64 host because >>>> the tests pass no 'machine' and 'cpu' options on the QEMU command >>>> line. Most other architectures define a default value in QEMU for >>>> these options, but arm does not. >>> >>> There was some discussions around that in the past: >>> https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20190621153806.13489-1-waine...@redhat.com/ >>> https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/cafeaca9nbu+l4whfkltv93wy90wjnv05ez12pt6pmljdz5h...@mail.gmail.com/ >> There's more than one topic being discussed, specially in this last >> thread, but here's my two cents. >> About defaults: It's probably best to be explicit in tests. And if >> we >> wanted, have a separate test to make sure the lack of an option still >> does what it's expected, either outputting a message or behaving the >> same as the explicit version. >> About host architecture-specific tests: Unless we're talking about >> KVM, >> I see no point. Having to change hosts to test agnostic features makes >> no sense (the migration test is one example). >> About generic tests: If a feature is required to behave the same for >> all >> architectures/machines/cpus then sure. But most low level stuff would be >> quite dependent on specifics. >> >>>> Add these options to the test class in case the test is being executed >>>> in an aarch64 host. >>> >>> I'm not sure what we are aiming to test here. >>> >>> Migration in general? If so, any random machine should work. >>> By hardcoding the 'virt' machine, at least this test is reproducible. >> Yeah, I cannot say for sure there isn't some machine property that >> gets >> transferred during migration. It seemed more conservative to define a >> specific one. > > Why did you choose 'virt' and not 'xlnx-versal-virt' or 'sbsa-ref'? > > What does this test require? Any machine running KVM? > > Adding Juan and David for migration since I'm still confused trying > to understand what we are trying to test here...
No clue really from my side either. ARM machine types are a mystery. But on one hand: - arm is a sane architecture when there is no default machine learn x86, learn. - I don't know either which one to use. Later, Juan. >>> I'd rather fix that generically as "if a test requires a default >>> machine and the target doesn't provide any default, then SKIP the >>> test". Then adding machine-specific tests. Can be done on top, so >> I agree, but the only tests that should *require* a default are the >> ones >> that test the command line parsing or adjacent features. We could always >> test "-machine foo" and then separately test that the lack of a machine >> option still gives the Foo machine. >> The fact that we sometimes use defaults to be able to have the >> same-ish >> command line for every case is more of a limitation of our testing >> infrastructure in my opinion.