On 12/09/2017 14:51, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 12.09.2017 um 14:28 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
>> On 12/09/2017 12:31, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> Hm, does this mean that instead of ./check failing when a binary is
>>> missing, we try each test case now and each one fails with the same
>>> error
Am 12.09.2017 um 14:28 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
> On 12/09/2017 12:31, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Hm, does this mean that instead of ./check failing when a binary is
> > missing, we try each test case now and each one fails with the same
> > error message?
> >
> > *tries it out*
> >
> > Okay,
On 12/09/2017 12:31, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Hm, does this mean that instead of ./check failing when a binary is
> missing, we try each test case now and each one fails with the same
> error message?
>
> *tries it out*
>
> Okay, it's already broken today because the strings are never empty but
>
Am 09.08.2017 um 23:55 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
> These are never used by "check", with one exception that does not need
> $QEMU_OPTIONS. Keep them in common.rc, which will be soon included only
> by the tests.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini
> diff --git
These are never used by "check", with one exception that does not need
$QEMU_OPTIONS. Keep them in common.rc, which will be soon included only
by the tests.
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini
---
tests/qemu-iotests/039.out | 10 ++---
tests/qemu-iotests/061.out | 4