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=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 BF9BBC74A42 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 05:49:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9339C21019 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 05:49:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazon.com header.i=@amazon.com header.b="iqGY9Nj8" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727831AbfGKFty (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jul 2019 01:49:54 -0400 Received: from smtp-fw-9102.amazon.com ([207.171.184.29]:23347 "EHLO smtp-fw-9102.amazon.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727248AbfGKFty (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jul 2019 01:49:54 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=amazon.com; i=@amazon.com; q=dns/txt; s=amazon201209; t=1562824193; x=1594360193; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wHeGT4hyzwEYhrwtHzWbpeS08ZRBQe5s5SLIUut76AM=; b=iqGY9Nj8RrwnFqcs4iZwohZpFVlWyeX4wUs8FfqVThnqFRLcuEynRGEM uhtpWj5TjXVziz2TwibTTtNLnEg2LR1zrozqbmAE/bTGJ+0fCc+Zj5PCb I9/G8Owa6ug/9JOrLEYtdGeQP4/sK7FwFCAXMk3KcPdKGPGPyQEsm4Jue g=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.62,476,1554768000"; d="scan'208";a="684877205" Received: from sea3-co-svc-lb6-vlan2.sea.amazon.com (HELO email-inbound-relay-1e-62350142.us-east-1.amazon.com) ([10.47.22.34]) by smtp-border-fw-out-9102.sea19.amazon.com with ESMTP; 11 Jul 2019 05:49:51 +0000 Received: from EX13MTAUWC001.ant.amazon.com (iad55-ws-svc-p15-lb9-vlan3.iad.amazon.com [10.40.159.166]) by email-inbound-relay-1e-62350142.us-east-1.amazon.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBF12A2402; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 05:49:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from EX13D20UWC001.ant.amazon.com (10.43.162.244) by EX13MTAUWC001.ant.amazon.com (10.43.162.135) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 05:49:49 +0000 Received: from 38f9d3867b82.ant.amazon.com (10.43.162.144) by EX13D20UWC001.ant.amazon.com (10.43.162.244) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 05:49:47 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH kvm-unit-tests] arm: Add PL031 test To: Paolo Bonzini , Andre Przywara CC: , Marc Zyngier , References: <20190710132724.28350-1-graf@amazon.com> <20190710180235.25c54b84@donnerap.cambridge.arm.com> <35e19306-d31b-187b-185d-e783f8d5a51a@redhat.com> From: Alexander Graf Message-ID: <1537a9f2-9d23-97dd-b195-8239b263d5db@amazon.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 07:49:45 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <35e19306-d31b-187b-185d-e783f8d5a51a@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.43.162.144] X-ClientProxiedBy: EX13D19UWC002.ant.amazon.com (10.43.162.179) To EX13D20UWC001.ant.amazon.com (10.43.162.244) Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On 10.07.19 19:06, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 10/07/19 19:02, Andre Przywara wrote: >>> + * This test verifies whether the emulated PL031 behaves >>> correctly. >> ^^^^^^^^ >> >> While I appreciate the effort and like the fact that this actually >> triggers an SPI, I wonder if this actually belongs into >> kvm-unit-tests. After all this just test a device purely emulated in >> (QEMU) userland, so it's not really KVM related. >> >> What is the general opinion on this? Don't we care about this >> hair-splitting as long as it helps testing? Do we even want to extend >> kvm-unit-tests coverage to more emulated devices, for instance >> virtio? > > I agree that it would belong more in qtest, but tests in not exactly the > right place is better than no tests. The problem with qtest is that it tests QEMU device models from a QEMU internal view. I am much more interested in the guest visible side of things. If kvmtool wanted to implement a PL031, it should be able to execute the same test that we run against QEMU, no? If kvm-unit-test is the wrong place for it, we would probably want to have a separate testing framework for guest side unit tests targeting emulated devices. Given how nice the kvm-unit-test framework is though, I'd rather rename it to "virt-unit-test" than reinvent the wheel :). Alex