From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B664CC47082 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 14:43:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C59061042 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 14:43:32 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4C59061042 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:42780 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lqcx1-0007Wa-Ga for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 10:43:31 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38714) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lqcw8-0005oh-Os for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 10:42:36 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-x332.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::332]:52758) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lqcw6-0002NF-7c for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 10:42:36 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-x332.google.com with SMTP id f17so2010873wmf.2 for ; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 07:42:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=references:user-agent:from:to:cc:subject:date:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3eNQm4a6GikdaydWBLx5RnhvNxQZI3zoWI4FlSqs2Fo=; b=ox6xsSO6QUZqVKFLOmpWavyLCqBovjrFAif7EZr8qJAEVrWF07jHTXv4HoXPCfGBMl 9g6ugmlmZMD2ryVBXZn+688O5+Gr7NBeUdUnm9jzhUjmMRz3Ckc3K4cWLGmwY/KrJ67o U6mti/Oi9IP7kahXMBBw1ayTqJ5yzWJWgn/+2wgwh7cW22UZNBMwMjE17gIyUNHf3+Qo I8rBXM4ZEgZxMwSOn4hSKol7C2MJVCQzuBEsW7ZNmkqof+JlaE7qy/HOSz5lHVjV8PKd Q8WF+UBsFk3DkxLHQvFh1sHYrB4UI4ONL3wFhkG+AE9mipcyeIr2sQ/5kUj39OnF+lSB +opw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:references:user-agent:from:to:cc:subject:date :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3eNQm4a6GikdaydWBLx5RnhvNxQZI3zoWI4FlSqs2Fo=; b=U2nz4j2ht6BCs0VlBe7HtgA8k5Ve7Vi0xgQf5OgXbVA+XmEPBwe1L/8Kg24EocXlzM 50JEb0WaZLtj4mAFvjiKIE5wkFAVLlG9972oqy1KRyohIfBYUa42k77Lkmq6WCDm1iWU zzz/fsdzAGzGxLJC23SEsqiEvRuEzKdKHgWPx94EnQXUIhhqgRcT64XKLnf8MVZMiSqY CGETGMi9t4T/3YCxF2tSeJKkYLqV+FfE/ryeig2EyZm+GkkLvyGiI3EQLQtlDS1rC8pd FPRxqDD3+FWEm67LM+bRadsHXOhJQjm2k7DUgEdhfizqFitsEiG96jfTrMLkBk+M7tXx q+1Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532n7ZFCWwTKfk10YPZCqPCf5ipTrsBV/iP+v02+vsRyzyiczj7g pmUIcfoJe2WhF30iPQBk35fyfw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwGyV3JBzeEdmw4C9NzTPtc50AfIS/U/2nODBzXRIhE561iTWMMg6625W7cjhpKo0S6rC7N6Q== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:21d1:: with SMTP id x17mr21965802wmj.167.1623163352619; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 07:42:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zen.linaroharston ([51.148.130.216]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w23sm3530006wmi.0.2021.06.08.07.42.31 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 08 Jun 2021 07:42:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zen (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zen.linaroharston (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64CEF1FF7E; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 15:42:31 +0100 (BST) References: <20210604155312.15902-1-alex.bennee@linaro.org> <20210604155312.15902-97-alex.bennee@linaro.org> <83b32ad3-18a6-c9d4-6561-c3c880234e09@redhat.com> <8f6c0b14-16da-4699-a279-fcbacd1e862d@redhat.com> User-agent: mu4e 1.5.13; emacs 28.0.50 From: Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= To: Thomas Huth Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 96/99] tests/qtest: split the cdrom-test into arm/aarch64 Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2021 15:41:23 +0100 In-reply-to: <8f6c0b14-16da-4699-a279-fcbacd1e862d@redhat.com> Message-ID: <87fsxsl8o8.fsf@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::332; envelope-from=alex.bennee@linaro.org; helo=mail-wm1-x332.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Laurent Vivier , "open list:IDE" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-arm@nongnu.org, Paolo Bonzini , John Snow Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Thomas Huth writes: > On 08/06/2021 15.42, John Snow wrote: >> On 6/4/21 11:53 AM, Alex Benn=C3=A9e wrote: >>> The assumption that the qemu-system-aarch64 image can run all 32 bit >>> machines is about to be broken and besides it's not likely this is >> What's changing? I'm not deeply familiar with aarch64. Why is this >> assumption about to be broken? > > That's also quite a surprise to me. Do you have any pointers? It's at the top of the series. If you build qemu-system-aarch64 with a custom config you won't be able to instantiate those machines. Ideally it would probe and maybe fail safe if the binary doesn't support the model. Is that possible in qtest? > >>> improving out coverage by much. Test the "virt" machine for both arm >>> and aarch64 as it can be used by either architecture. >>> >> Sounds fine to me, but I didn't write this part of the test. Thomas, >> you wrote this section IIRC -- does this reduce coverage in any >> meaningful way? > > I think we built only aarch64 in a couple of our CI pipelines, > assuming that it covers all normal arm machines, too ... so we might > want to revisit our CI pipelines to check whether we then need more > test coverage for qemu-system-arm instead. But apart from that, the > patch looks ok to me. > > Thomas --=20 Alex Benn=C3=A9e