On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 03:50:15PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:57:06 +0100 > Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 at 09:58, Shameer Kolothum > > <shameerali.kolothum.th...@huawei.com> wrote: > > > > > > This patch is in preparation for adding numamem and memhp tests > > > to arm/virt board so that 'make check' is happy. This may not > > > be required once the scripts are run and new tables are > > > generated with ".numamem" and ".memhp" extensions. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.th...@huawei.com> > > > --- > > > I am not sure this is the right way to do this. But without this, when > > > the numamem and memhp tests are added, you will get, > > > > > > Looking for expected file 'tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT.numamem' > > > Looking for expected file 'tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT' > > > ** > > > ERROR:tests/bios-tables-test.c:327:load_expected_aml: assertion failed: > > > (exp_sdt.aml_file) > > > > > > --- > > > tests/data/acpi/virt/SLIT | Bin 0 -> 48 bytes > > > tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT | Bin 0 -> 224 bytes > > > 2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > create mode 100644 tests/data/acpi/virt/SLIT > > > create mode 100644 tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT > > > > Do the tests pass with this patch and without the > > patch that adds the tests? (That is, can we keep the > > two patches separate without breaking bisection, or > > do we need to squash them together?) > > > > I'll leave it to somebody who understands the ACPI > > tests stuff to answer whether there's a better way to > I'd squash this patch into 11/11 test case,
Pls don't - the way to add this is to add the files in question to tests/bios-tables-test-allowed-diff.h. Maintainer will create a separate commit updating the binaries and removing them from the whitelist. This way things like rebase work seemlessly. > CCing Michael (since he's the one who applies ACPI patches) > > > do this. > > > > thanks > > -- PMM > >