On 6/4/21 11:11 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 6/4/21 8:51 AM, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> if (g_str_equal(qtest_get_arch(), "ppc64") &&
>> (access("/sys/module/kvm_hv", F_OK) ||
>> - access("/dev/kvm", R_OK | W_OK))) {
>> + access("/dev/kvm", R_OK | W_OK) || !qtest_has_accel("kvm"))) {
>> g_test_message("Skipping test: kvm_hv not available");
>> return g_test_run();
>> }
>> @@ -1398,7 +1398,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>> */
>> if (g_str_equal(qtest_get_arch(), "s390x")) {
>> #if defined(HOST_S390X)
>> - if (access("/dev/kvm", R_OK | W_OK)) {
>> + if (access("/dev/kvm", R_OK | W_OK) ||
>> !qtest_has_accel("kvm")) {
>> g_test_message("Skipping test: kvm not available");
>
> I would have sorted the kvm test first.
access() is a simple syscall from the qtest, while qtest_has_accel()
spawn a whole QEMU process to exec the QMP request.
> For s390x, we has the HOST test, but ppc doesn't. So we're doing the
> access() on any host, e.g. x86_64, where kvm cannot true for this test.
Hmm I suppose the issue you described predate this patch?
