[libvirt] [PATCH 0/8] vfio-ccw passthrough support

[Boris Fiuczynski]

On 05/07/2018 01:51 PM, John Ferlan wrote:
> [...]
> 
>>> Someone may also want to consider creating a s390 specific version of
>>> what Peter did for x86_64 for VIR_TEST_CAPS_LATEST in order to then
>>> have/use the "latest" capabilities instead of adding bits to xml2argv
>>> tests. I'm curious why the xml2xml test needed the bit adjustment - did
>>> something fail?  Since there were no xml output data changes, that would
>>> seem to indicate there isn't a need to modify the xml2xml test source.
>> I am not sure if I understood you correctly. Are you referring to patch
>> 1? If so the changes are caused by a new QEMU_CAPS_CCW capability
>> replacing the QEMU_CAPS_VIRTIO_CCW capability. More is explained in the
>> commit message of the patch. In short: With support of vfio-ccw it
>> became apparent that the existence of the ccw bus is not well sourced by
>> observing virtio-ccw and therefore we replaced it with the detection of
>> the virtual-css-bridge. Let me know if I understood you wrong.
>>
> 
> Sorry it wasn't clear enough - changes were recently made to
> tests/qemuxml2argvtest.c in order to run the tests using the latest
> capabilities rather than needing to pass each capability through the
> test. The macros also have a version specific macro which allows for
> checking/output from "previous" QEMU releases.
> 
> However, the changes only modified macros for x86_64 - so my comment was
> if someone felt so inclined to avoid needing/checking specific/certain
> caps and only cared that the latest caps did something a certain way,
> then adjusting those macros/tests to handle s390* specific things would
> perhaps helps achieve that. Furthermore, if previous QEMU versions would
> produce different results, then using the version specific checks/output
> would provide that support.

Oh, I tried to connect your comment to the vfio-ccw passthrough patch 
series but it seems rather unrelated to me.
Anyway you are right that it could be useful to extend the macros 
DO_TEST_CAPS_LATEST and DO_TEST_CAPS_VER beyond x86_64 arch. I do see 
these macros more like additional test scenarios that are a bit more 
reality oriented. The currently used approach of explicitly setting the 
minimum required capabilities for a single test case is still making 
sense to me as well since it allows to (slightly) narrow down the tested 
code path to the actual to be tested code/feature.


-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen/Kind regards
    Boris Fiuczynski

IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Martina Köderitz
Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294