From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47064) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eMuk5-0004il-94 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2017 06:53:30 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eMuk0-0001Vk-5C for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2017 06:53:29 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 12:53:13 +0100 From: Cornelia Huck Message-ID: <20171207125313.1a5d1c5e.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20171108165422.46267-1-pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <2ada83cf-1eb6-87c0-7597-13dc11ab09c0@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu-s390x] [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] tests for CCW IDA List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth Cc: Halil Pasic , Dong Jia Shi , qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, Pierre Morel , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, David Hildenbrand On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 10:01:35 +0100 Thomas Huth wrote: > On 07.12.2017 07:38, Thomas Huth wrote: > > On 08.11.2017 17:54, Halil Pasic wrote: > >> I've keept the title althogh the scope shifted a bit: it's > >> more about introducing ccw-testdev than about IDA. The goal > >> is to facilitate testing the virtual channel subsystem > >> implementation, and the ccw interpretation. > >> > >> The first patch is the interesting one. See it's cover letter > >> for details. The RFC is about discussing some technical issues > >> with this patch. > >> > >> The other two patches are an out of source kernel module which > >> is basically only there so you can try out the first patch. The > >> tests there should probably be ported to something else. I don't > >> know what: maybe kvm-unit-tests, maybe qtest+libqos, or maybe some > >> bios based test image. We still have to figure out that. > > > > I think both, kvm-unit-tests or qtest+libqos would be good candidates. > > Please don't invent a new bios base test image, since kvm-unit-tests > > should be very similar already and we really don't need to duplicate > > work here. > > > > Anyway, you'd need to add some CSS infracture there first (in both > > kvm-unit-tests and the qtest environments), so it's likely a similar > > amount of work. qtest has the advantage that it gets checked > > automatically during "make check" each time, so I'd have a weak > > preference for that one. > > Another thought: I'd also like to see the more complex virtio device > qtests enabled for virtio-ccw one day (e.g. tests/virtio-blk-test.c), so > I think we sooner or later should have some CSS infrastructure in the > qtests anyway ==> May I suggest that you have a try with the qtest approach? Agreed, this would be helpful to get more ccw coverage in general.