On 15.02.19 16:58, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 15/02/2019 14.30, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> We can easily test this, just like PCI.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> tests/device-plug-test.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/device-plug-test.c b/tests/device-plug-test.c
>> index ec6cb5de7b..4c581319c0 100644
>> --- a/tests/device-plug-test.c
>> +++ b/tests/device-plug-test.c
>> @@ -116,6 +116,22 @@ static void test_spapr_cpu_unplug_request(void)
>> qtest_quit(qtest);
>> }
>>
>> +static void test_spapr_memory_unplug_request(void)
>> +{
>> + QTestState *qtest;
>> +
>> + qtest = qtest_initf("-m 1G,slots=1,maxmem=2G "
>> + "-object memory-backend-ram,id=mem0,size=1G "
>> + "-device pc-dimm,id=dev0,memdev=mem0");
>> +
>> + /* similar to test_pci_unplug_request */
>> + device_del_request(qtest, "dev0");
>> + system_reset(qtest);
>> + wait_device_deleted_event(qtest, "dev0");
>> +
>> + qtest_quit(qtest);
>> +}
>> +
>> int main(int argc, char **argv)
>> {
>> const char *arch = qtest_get_arch();
>> @@ -140,5 +156,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>> test_spapr_cpu_unplug_request);
>> }
>>
>> + if (!strcmp(arch, "ppc64")) {
>> + qtest_add_func("/device-plug/spapr_memory_unplug_request",
>> + test_spapr_memory_unplug_request);
>> + }
>
> By the way, it's maybe nicer to put all ppc-related tests into the same
> if-statement?
Yes, makes sense!
>
> Thomas
>
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
