On 07/01/2019 05:29 PM, Cleber Rosa wrote:
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
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 01:39:33PM -0400, Cleber Rosa wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 05:18:46PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:02:17AM -0400, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta wrote:
> > > Until now the suite of acceptance tests doesn't exercise
> > > QEMU with kvm
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
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 05:18:46PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:02:17AM -0400, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta wrote:
> > Until now the suite of acceptance tests doesn't exercise
> > QEMU with kvm enabled. So this introduces a simple test
> > that boots the Linux kernel
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:02:17AM -0400, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta wrote:
> Until now the suite of acceptance tests doesn't exercise
> QEMU with kvm enabled. So this introduces a simple test
> that boots the Linux kernel and checks it boots on the
> accelerator correctly.
>
> Signed-off-by:
Until now the suite of acceptance tests doesn't exercise
QEMU with kvm enabled. So this introduces a simple test
that boots the Linux kernel and checks it boots on the
accelerator correctly.
Signed-off-by: Wainer dos Santos Moschetta
---
tests/acceptance/kvm.py | 58
