On Fri, 2015-08-21 at 14:37 -0700, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> > --- a/tests/cputest.c
> > +++ b/tests/cputest.c
> > @@ -607,6 +607,10 @@ mymain(void)
> > DO_TEST_COMPARE("ppc64", "host", "guest-legacy",
> > VIR_CPU_COMPARE_IDENTICAL);
> > DO_TEST_COMPARE("ppc64", "host", "guest-legacy-incompatible",
> > VIR_CPU_COMPARE_INCOMPATIBLE);
> > DO_TEST_COMPARE("ppc64", "host", "guest-legacy-invalid",
> > VIR_CPU_COMPARE_ERROR);
> > + DO_TEST_COMPARE("ppc64", "host", "guest-compat-none",
> > VIR_CPU_COMPARE_IDENTICAL);
> > + DO_TEST_COMPARE("ppc64", "host", "guest-compat-valid",
> > VIR_CPU_COMPARE_IDENTICAL);
> > + DO_TEST_COMPARE("ppc64", "host", "guest-compat-invalid",
> > VIR_CPU_COMPARE_ERROR);
>
> I'm wondering how the above test could have passed when ret was
> initialized to VIR_CPU_COMPARE_IDENTICAL in patch 2 :-)
All tests pass both on my laptop and on actual POWER hardware...
Did you get a failure instead?
> > diff --git a/tests/cputestdata/ppc64-host+guest-compat
> > -incompatible.xml b/tests/cputestdata/ppc64-host+guest-compat
> > -incompatible.xml
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..1fab751
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tests/cputestdata/ppc64-host+guest-compat-incompatible.xml
> > @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
> > +<cpu mode='host-model' match='exact'>
> > + <model fallback='allow'>power8</model>
> > +</cpu>
>
> The test is supposed to fail for this (and some other cases too) so
> why
> do we need to have an output XML?
Test cases that use VIR_TEST_UPDATE() run in two steps:
1. run cpuUpdate() and compare the returned XML to the expected
XML - the file you're referring to
2. the obtained XML definition is tested for compatibility with
the host CPU using cpuCompare()
So the expected failures refer to the second check, and you still
need to have the expected XML for the first part - if you try and
remove it, the test case will fail.
Cheers.
--
Andrea Bolognani
Software Engineer - Virtualization Team
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list