On 04/02/2018 02:39 PM, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 29.03.2018 20:28, John Snow wrote: >> >> >> On 03/16/2018 01:39 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> With one of my clean-up patches (see commit 1454509726719e0933c800), I >>> recently accidentially broke the "-cdrom" parameter (more precisely >>> "-drive if=scsi") on a couple of boards, since there was no error >>> detected during the "make check" regression testing. This is clearly an >>> indication that we are lacking tests in this area. >>> So this small patch series now introduces some tests for CD-ROM drives: >>> The first two patches introduce the possibility to check that booting >>> from CD-ROM drives still works fine for x86 and s390x, and the third >>> patch adds a test that certain machines can at least still be started >>> with the "-cdrom" parameter (i.e. that test would have catched the >>> mistake that I did with my SCSI cleanup patch). >>> >>> v2: >>> - Use g_spawn_sync() instead of execlp() to run genisoimage >>> - The "-cdrom" parameter test is now run on all architectures (with >>> machine "none" for the machines that are not explicitly checked) >>> - Some rewordings and improved comments here and there >>> >>> Thomas Huth (3): >>> tests/boot-sector: Add magic bytes to s390x boot code header >>> tests/cdrom-test: Test booting from CD-ROM ISO image file >>> tests/cdrom-test: Test that -cdrom parameter is working >>> >>> tests/Makefile.include | 2 + >>> tests/boot-sector.c | 9 +- >>> tests/cdrom-test.c | 222 >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 3 files changed, 230 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> create mode 100644 tests/cdrom-test.c >>> >> >> New file, but no edit to MAINTAINERS. > > Which section do you suggest? It tests IDE CD-ROMs, SCSI CD-ROMs, and > even virtio-block (on s390x) ... so I have a hard time to decide where > this should belong to... > > Thomas >
I was hoping you'd figure it out, but fine :D You can stick it under my section if you want, but I'll probably defer to you if the s390x parts break. --js
