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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_ALL,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,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 6F09DC74A4B for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:07:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.11.253]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E70AE208E4 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:07:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=amazon.com header.i=@amazon.com header.b="otF2lq3q" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E70AE208E4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=amazon.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AD9C4A49C; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 06:07:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Authentication-Results: mm01.cs.columbia.edu (amavisd-new); dkim=softfail (fail, message has been altered) header.i=@amazon.com Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lnow3e4D-abS; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 06:07:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D3914A518; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 06:07:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEC844A52E for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 01:49:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BDKy5mbZZ1Cr for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 01:49:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp-fw-9102.amazon.com (smtp-fw-9102.amazon.com [207.171.184.29]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DD7E4A4FF for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 01:49:54 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=amazon.com; i=@amazon.com; q=dns/txt; s=amazon201209; t=1562824194; x=1594360194; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wHeGT4hyzwEYhrwtHzWbpeS08ZRBQe5s5SLIUut76AM=; b=otF2lq3qInyQoPQm4w5N8mnKDK40g0EhVx92kBaiS0iji9dWxKKCd+9g 8pwYS3lk6jg8J35bPrCXoyNdhrIhhTXiCl7Ydr65dpnyuxtt9lY0BzWlU yXnk6kdYuvqa3V1xPKXGTk2Znyz+mpxRTT+8GPbcii4yB7xhZjxfj5+jb k=; 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 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-Language: en-US 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) Precedence: Bulk X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 06:07:52 -0400 Cc: Marc Zyngier , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org X-BeenThere: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 List-Id: Where KVM/ARM decisions are made List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu 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 _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm