Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH-for-4.2 v10 10/11] tests: add dummy ACPI tables for arm/virt board

[Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:57:06 +0100
Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 at 09:58, Shameer Kolothum
> <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> > This patch is in preparation for adding numamem and memhp tests
> > to arm/virt board so that 'make check' is happy. This may not
> > be required once the scripts are run and new tables are
> > generated with ".numamem" and ".memhp" extensions.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > I am not sure this is the right way to do this. But without this, when
> > the numamem and memhp tests are added, you will get,
> >
> > Looking for expected file 'tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT.numamem'
> > Looking for expected file 'tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT'
> > **
> > ERROR:tests/bios-tables-test.c:327:load_expected_aml: assertion failed: (exp_sdt.aml_file)
> >
> > ---
> >  tests/data/acpi/virt/SLIT | Bin 0 -> 48 bytes
> >  tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT | Bin 0 -> 224 bytes
> >  2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >  create mode 100644 tests/data/acpi/virt/SLIT
> >  create mode 100644 tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT  
> 
> Do the tests pass with this patch and without the
> patch that adds the tests? (That is, can we keep the
> two patches separate without breaking bisection, or
> do we need to squash them together?)
> 
> I'll leave it to somebody who understands the ACPI
> tests stuff to answer whether there's a better way to
I'd squash this patch into 11/11 test case,
CCing Michael (since he's the one who applies ACPI patches)

> do this.
> 
> thanks
> -- PMM
>