[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v2 04/33] domaincapstest: Add test data for QEMU 2.9.0




On 02/22/2017 04:06 AM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 09:23:34 -0500, John Ferlan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 02/15/2017 11:44 AM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar redhat com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Notes:
>>>     Version 2:
>>>     - no change
>>>
>>>  .../domaincapsschemadata/qemu_2.9.0-tcg.x86_64.xml | 116 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  tests/domaincapsschemadata/qemu_2.9.0.x86_64.xml   | 116 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  tests/domaincapstest.c                             |   8 ++
>>>  3 files changed, 240 insertions(+)
>>>  create mode 100644 tests/domaincapsschemadata/qemu_2.9.0-tcg.x86_64.xml
>>>  create mode 100644 tests/domaincapsschemadata/qemu_2.9.0.x86_64.xml
>>>
>>
>> Will this "eventually" need an updated when qemu 2.9 is complete? Or is
>> it "close enough"?
> 
> Probably not, but we can't tell until 2.9 is complete :-)
> 
>>> diff --git a/tests/domaincapstest.c b/tests/domaincapstest.c
>>> index 28d8609ac..9b64f2c18 100644
>>> --- a/tests/domaincapstest.c
>>> +++ b/tests/domaincapstest.c
>>> @@ -453,6 +453,14 @@ mymain(void)
>>>                   "/usr/bin/qemu-system-x86_64", NULL,
>>>                   "x86_64", VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_QEMU);
>>>  
>>> +    DO_TEST_QEMU("2.9.0", "caps_2.9.0",
>>> +                 "/usr/bin/qemu-system-x86_64", NULL,
>>> +                 "x86_64", VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_KVM);
>>> +
>>> +    DO_TEST_QEMU("2.9.0-tcg", "caps_2.9.0",
>>> +                 "/usr/bin/qemu-system-x86_64", NULL,
>>> +                 "x86_64", VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_QEMU);
>>> +
>>>      DO_TEST_QEMU("2.7.0", "caps_2.7.0",
>>>                   "/usr/bin/qemu-system-s390x", NULL,
>>>                   "s390x", VIR_DOMAIN_VIRT_KVM);
>>
>> What about "s390x" for 2.9.0?  Since later patches seem to make some
>> alterations for s390...
> 
> s390 provides the required functionality since 2.8.0, thus we already
> have the test data in place.
> 
>> Unrelated to this patch question - should these always be updated for
>> each cpu type for each release?
> 
> I don't think we need to always update all of them at once. I tend to
> add test data for things we want to test which are not present in
> existing data sets.
> 
> Jirka
> 

OK - ACK for this one too then.

John


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]