On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 06:03:41PM -0300, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
> On 02/27/2013 05:44 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>+Using qemu (supported since qemu 1.3):
> >>>+qemu-system-x86_64 -enable-kvm -device pc-testdev -serial stdio -device
> >>>isa-debug-exit,iobase=0xf4,iosize=0x4 -kernel ./x86/msr.flat
> >>
> >>I think it is worth here to point out that with new qemu, after the
> >>unittest is done, the exit status of qemu is 1, different from the
> >>'old style', whose exit status in successful completion is 0.
>
> ^ "comment above"
>
> >>
> >>>+exec ${command} "$@"
> >>
> >>^ What about checking the exit status of qemu here and print
> >>something like "test $@ PASS" or "test $@ FAIL"?
> >
> >How do we know how to interpret it?
> >Overall I think it's best to rely on test output
> >than on return status.
>
> See comment above. Well, test output may be good for humans, but it
> is really not good for machines [1], that's why when the test suite
> was developed, the convention was to make qemu to exit with a given
> return code on success and others on failure.
Right but given a qemu binary, how do I find out what it is on success
and what it is on failure?
> Anyway, it was just a
> suggestion, feel free to disregard it.
>
> [1] having to parse the output and try to guess what is a pass or
> fail is a mess at best, and should be avoided unless we positively
> have no saner way of doing it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
