Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> writes: > Am 28.09.2015 um 22:08 schrieb Markus Armbruster: >> We want to run qom-test for every architecture, without having to >> manually add it to every architecture's list of tests. Commit 3687d53 >> accomplished this by adding it to every architecture's list >> automatically. >> >> However, some architectures inherit their tests from others, like this: >> >> check-qtest-x86_64-y = $(check-qtest-i386-y) >> check-qtest-microblazeel-y = $(check-qtest-microblaze-y) >> check-qtest-xtensaeb-y = $(check-qtest-xtensa-y) >> >> For such architectures, we ended up running the (slow!) test twice. >> Commit 2b8419c attempted to avoid this by adding the test only when >> it's not already present. Works only as long as we consider adding >> the test to the architectures on the left hand side *after* the ones >> on the right hand side: x86_64 after i386, microblazeel after >> microblaze, xtensaeb after xtensa. >> >> Turns out we consider them in $(SYSEMU_TARGET_LIST) order. Defined as >> >> SYSEMU_TARGET_LIST := $(subst -softmmu.mak,,$(notdir \ >> $(wildcard $(SRC_PATH)/default-configs/*-softmmu.mak))) >> >> On my machine, this results in the oder xtensa, x86_64, microblazeel, >> microblaze, i386. Consequently, qom-test runs twice for microblazeel >> and x86_64. >> >> Replace this complex and flawed machinery with a much simpler one: add >> generic tests (currently just qom-test) to check-qtest-generic-y >> instead of check-qtest-$(target)-y for every target, then run >> $(check-qtest-generic-y) for every target. >> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> >> --- >> tests/Makefile | 14 ++++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > Looks good to me, > > Reviewed-by: Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> > > However one comment regarding your commit message: You missed that I > proposed a different patch before Peter committed his. I wonder whether > mine had the same issue...
I checked git history, I didn't check mailing list history :) I just had a peek, but can't find anything. I'm happy to improve my commit message, but I need either data to work in or a specific proposal. > BTW there's an old patch from Stefan H. on the list (that I have on my > queue to revisit, help appreciated), to make QTests more verbose even > without V=1. If you can give a pointer, I might be able to review. Thanks!
