[libvirt] [PATCH] tests: reintroduce tests for libxl's legacy nested setting

[Jim Fehlig]

On 10/1/18 2:35 AM, Erik Skultety wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 08:04:57AM +0200, Erik Skultety wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 08:25:53AM -0600, Jim Fehlig wrote:
>>> On 9/27/18 3:29 AM, Erik Skultety wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:31:19AM -0600, Jim Fehlig wrote:
>>>>> The preferred location for setting the nested CPU flag changed in
>>>>> Xen 4.10 and is advertised via the LIBXL_HAVE_BUILDINFO_NESTED_HVM
>>>>> define.  Commit 95d19cd0 changed libxl to use the new preferred
>>>>> location but unconditionally changed the tests, causing 'make check'
>>>>> failures against Xen < 4.10 that do not contain the new location.
>>>>>
>>>>> Commit e94415d5 fixed the failures by only running the tests when
>>>>> LIBXL_HAVE_BUILDINFO_NESTED_HVM is defined. Since libvirt supports
>>>>> several versions of Xen that use the old nested location, it is
>>>>> prudent to test the flag is set correctly. This patch reintroduces
>>>>> the tests for the legacy location of the nested setting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jim Fehlig <jfehlig at suse.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> We could probably get by with one test for the old nested location,
>>>>> in which case I'd drop vnuma-hvm-legacy-nest. Any opinions on that?
>>>>
>>>> I verified with a few different platforms. I don't have a better idea on what
>>>> to do about the legacy tests, we either add more (even identical) test files
>>>> or we figure out some black magic to do the same thing (not preferred).
>>>> Anyway, to answer your question, even though it might be enough, I'd like to
>>>> stay consistent and keep both, so that if one day someone is looking at the
>>>> source they don't wonder why only one of them is being run in the legacy mode.
>>>> I hope that makes sense.
>>>
>>> Yep, no problem. Should I push now or after release?
>>
>> Ah, sorry, we definitely want this in the release, so safe for freeze.
> 
> I went ahead and pushed the patch myself, since DV plans on doing the release
> at some point during the day which might already by too late for you because of
> a different timezone.

Yep, I would have missed the release. Thanks for pushing it!

Regards
Jim