On 3/8/21 2:52 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote: > On 3/8/21 2:27 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >> Hi Claudio, >> >> On 3/8/21 1:57 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> anything else for me to do here? >>> >>> The latest rebased state of this series should be always available here: >>> >>> https://gitlab.com/hw-claudio/qemu/-/tree/i386_cleanup_8 >>> >>> When it comes to the ARM cleanup series, >>> I would like to have the tests pass for ARM, before doing even more >>> changes, could you help me there Philippe? >>> >>> Maybe applying some of your changes on top would fix the failures? I tried, >>> for example with the arm-cpu-features ones, but it didn't work for me.. >> >> TBH I wrote these patches during my personal spare time and this >> became a real Pandora box that drained too much energy. I prefer >> to step back and focus on finishing smaller tasks before burning >> out. That said I appreciate your effort and am interested in >> following / reviewing your work. >> >> Regards, >> >> Phil. >> > > Thanks Philippe for sharing this, and I agree completely, it is very draining. > > The effort of making tests happy that run in artificial environments in > particular often feels to me > as too disconnected from actually ensuring that there is no real run time > regression. > > qtest_enabled() (implicitly, or explicitly via open-ended else statements) is > another painful variable to keep in mind in cpu and machine code, so it is > not helpful in my view. > > I'll try to push more to get the tests running again, if you have any comment > or idea, feel free to just point me in the right direction, > that is very valuable to me, even without working code.
Basically I gave up after realizing from Daniel reviews that we need QMP commands to query QEMU at runtime its built-in features, so we have build-agnostic tests easier to maintain. I agree this is the best way to resolve this particular case, but also scale for various other cases.
