From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:33062) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h15ag-0006LG-LF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Mar 2019 03:38:23 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h15ac-0003m5-UG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Mar 2019 03:38:20 -0500 Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 09:38:09 +0100 From: Cornelia Huck Message-ID: <20190305093809.751f91b9.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5de5cda9-5db2-6207-5b90-52206be1da72@redhat.com> References: <1551466776-29123-1-git-send-email-jjherne@linux.ibm.com> <1551466776-29123-6-git-send-email-jjherne@linux.ibm.com> <20190304180742.486c8994.cohuck@redhat.com> <5de5cda9-5db2-6207-5b90-52206be1da72@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu-s390x] [PATCH v3 05/16] s390-bios: Factor finding boot device out of virtio code path List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth Cc: "Jason J. Herne" , alifm@linux.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pasic@linux.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 20:26:17 +0100 Thomas Huth wrote: > On 04/03/2019 18.07, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 13:59:25 -0500 > > "Jason J. Herne" wrote: > > > >> Make a new routine find_boot_device to locate the boot device for all > >> cases, not just virtio. > >> > >> The error message for the case where no boot device has been specified > >> and a suitable boot device cannot be auto detected was specific to > >> virtio devices. We update this message to remove virtio specific wording. > > > > ...and, consequently, need to tweak the serial output boot test. > > > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jason J. Herne > >> Reviewed-by: Farhan Ali > >> --- > >> pc-bios/s390-ccw/main.c | 85 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------- > >> tests/boot-serial-test.c | 2 +- > >> 2 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-) > >> > > (...) > >> - IPL_assert(found, "No virtio device found"); > >> + IPL_assert(found, "Boot device not found\n"); > > > > You change the output in the bios here... > > > > (...) > >> diff --git a/tests/boot-serial-test.c b/tests/boot-serial-test.c > >> index 58a48f3..9daf2cb 100644 > >> --- a/tests/boot-serial-test.c > >> +++ b/tests/boot-serial-test.c > >> @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ static testdef_t tests[] = { > >> { "sparc", "SS-4", "", "MB86904" }, > >> { "sparc", "SS-600MP", "", "TMS390Z55" }, > >> { "sparc64", "sun4u", "", "UltraSPARC" }, > >> - { "s390x", "s390-ccw-virtio", "", "virtio device" }, > >> + { "s390x", "s390-ccw-virtio", "", "device" }, > > > > ...and therefore need to change the expected string here. Question: is > > that ok ("device" looks a bit generic), or would "Boot device" be a > > better match? > > Just "device" should be OK. The exact string in the boot-serial-test > does not matter too much, as long as it comes from the same print statement. Ok, makes sense. Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck