On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 03:34:51PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>
> Agreed that kvm:tcg fallback I suggested isn't a good idea.
> However, do we really want to require a separate test method to
> be written just because we want to use a different accelerator or
> other QEMU option?
>
No, in the short term we want to have tests that can respond to a
number of well known parameters, such as "accel". But to actually
have tests (names) that are meaningful enough, we need to:
1) Add a varianter implementation (or usage)
2) Drop the duplicate tests
#1 is needed because:
a) it doesn't feel right to name tests based on simple command
line parameters (the ones given with -p, say, "-p accel=kvm"
will add to the test name "accel_kvm".
b) a variant *name* is added to the test ID, which then can be
kept consistent.
Then we can proceed to #2, and drop the duplicate tests, say:
- test_x86_64_pc, test_x86_64_pc_kvm => test_x86_64_pc
On a further iteration, it may even make sense to consolidate:
- test_x86_64_pc, test_x86_64_q35 => test_x86_64
Time will tell.
> This patch may be the simplest solution short term, but can we
> have something that doesn't require so much code duplication and
> boilerplate code in the future?
Yes, the new implementation of the Varianter CIT is now generally
available on Avocado 70.0, so I'm working on a file that hopefully
will suite the acceptance tests.
>
> --
> Eduardo
Best,
- Cleber.
