Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 01/11] tests: Add test case for x86 feature parsing compatibility
On 30/09/2016 20:33, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 09:55:33AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> >> On 29/09/2016 23:14, Eduardo Habkost wrote: >>> + * "-foo" overrides "+foo" >>> + * "[+-]foo" overrides "foo=..." >> >> Is this something that people are actually using? Can we detect it and >> deprecate it in 2.8, and drop it in 2.9? > > We can, but I would like to keep the test cases there in 2.8, at > least. I will update the test case to note that this is legacy > behavior that we plan to remove in 2.9, and send a separate > follow-up patch to detect when people mix both formats. Yes, of course! Sounds like a very good plan. Paolo
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 01/11] tests: Add test case for x86 feature parsing compatibility
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 09:55:33AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 29/09/2016 23:14, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > + * "-foo" overrides "+foo" > > + * "[+-]foo" overrides "foo=..." > > Is this something that people are actually using? Can we detect it and > deprecate it in 2.8, and drop it in 2.9? We can, but I would like to keep the test cases there in 2.8, at least. I will update the test case to note that this is legacy behavior that we plan to remove in 2.9, and send a separate follow-up patch to detect when people mix both formats. -- Eduardo
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 01/11] tests: Add test case for x86 feature parsing compatibility
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 09:55:33 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 29/09/2016 23:14, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > + * "-foo" overrides "+foo" > > + * "[+-]foo" overrides "foo=..." > > Is this something that people are actually using? Can we detect it and > deprecate it in 2.8, and drop it in 2.9? Libvirt uses -cpu Model,+foo,-bar style, but we do not mix mix -foo and +foo, or even [+-]foo and foo= if this is what you asked. Jirka
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 01/11] tests: Add test case for x86 feature parsing compatibility
On 29/09/2016 23:14, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > + * "-foo" overrides "+foo" > + * "[+-]foo" overrides "foo=..." Is this something that people are actually using? Can we detect it and deprecate it in 2.8, and drop it in 2.9? Paolo > + * "foo_bar" should be translated to "foo-bar"
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 01/11] tests: Add test case for x86 feature parsing compatibility
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 06:14:49PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > Add a new test case to ensure the existing behavior of the > feature parsing code wlil be kept. s/wlil/will/ > > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost Jonathan Neuschäfer signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 01/11] tests: Add test case for x86 feature parsing compatibility
Add a new test case to ensure the existing behavior of the
feature parsing code wlil be kept.
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost
---
Changes series v3 -> v4:
* New patch added to series
---
tests/test-x86-cpuid-compat.c | 39 +++
1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tests/test-x86-cpuid-compat.c b/tests/test-x86-cpuid-compat.c
index 83162a4..7cff2b5 100644
--- a/tests/test-x86-cpuid-compat.c
+++ b/tests/test-x86-cpuid-compat.c
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
#include "qapi/qmp/qlist.h"
#include "qapi/qmp/qdict.h"
#include "qapi/qmp/qint.h"
+#include "qapi/qmp/qbool.h"
#include "libqtest.h"
static char *get_cpu0_qom_path(void)
@@ -34,6 +35,15 @@ static QObject *qom_get(const char *path, const char *prop)
return ret;
}
+static bool qom_get_bool(const char *path, const char *prop)
+{
+QBool *value = qobject_to_qbool(qom_get(path, prop));
+bool b = qbool_get_bool(value);
+
+QDECREF(value);
+return b;
+}
+
typedef struct CpuidTestArgs {
const char *cmdline;
const char *property;
@@ -66,10 +76,39 @@ static void add_cpuid_test(const char *name, const char
*cmdline,
qtest_add_data_func(name, args, test_cpuid_prop);
}
+static void test_plus_minus(void)
+{
+char *path;
+
+/* Rules:
+ * "-foo" overrides "+foo"
+ * "[+-]foo" overrides "foo=..."
+ * "foo_bar" should be translated to "foo-bar"
+ */
+qtest_start("-cpu
pentium,-fpu,+fpu,-mce,mce=on,+cx8,cx8=off,+sse4_1,sse4_2=on");
+path = get_cpu0_qom_path();
+
+g_assert_false(qom_get_bool(path, "fpu"));
+g_assert_false(qom_get_bool(path, "mce"));
+g_assert_true(qom_get_bool(path, "cx8"));
+
+/* Test both the original and the alias feature names: */
+g_assert_true(qom_get_bool(path, "sse4-1"));
+g_assert_true(qom_get_bool(path, "sse4.1"));
+
+g_assert_true(qom_get_bool(path, "sse4-2"));
+g_assert_true(qom_get_bool(path, "sse4.2"));
+
+qtest_end();
+g_free(path);
+}
+
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
g_test_init(&argc, &argv, NULL);
+qtest_add_func("x86/cpuid/parsing-plus-minus", test_plus_minus);
+
/* Original level values for CPU models: */
add_cpuid_test("x86/cpuid/phenom/level",
"-cpu phenom", "level", 5);
--
2.7.4
