On 4/10/19 12:53 PM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-04-01 at 12:47 -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
> [...]
>> @@ -170,6 +150,11 @@ mymain(void)
>> char *fakerootdir;
>> struct testQemuInfo info;
>> virQEMUDriverConfigPtr cfg = NULL;
>> + virHashTablePtr capslatest = NULL;
>> +
>> + capslatest = testQemuGetCapsLatest();
>> + if (!capslatest)
>> + abort();
>
> Woah, that's a bit harsh, isn't it? How about a nice and polite
>
> return EXIT_FAILURE;
>
> instead? :)
>
I was just following the pattern of the error conditions right after
this, but I'll use your suggestion.
> [...]
>> @@ -192,11 +177,14 @@ mymain(void)
>>
>> # define DO_TEST_FULL(name, when, gic, ...) \
>> do { \
>> - if (testInfoSetCommon(&info, gic) < 0) { \
>> + if (testQemuInfoSetArgs(&info, capslatest, \
>> + ARG_GIC, gic, \
>> + ARG_QEMU_CAPS, __VA_ARGS__, QEMU_CAPS_LAST, \
>> + ARG_END) < 0 || \
>> + qemuTestCapsCacheInsert(driver.qemuCapsCache, info.qemuCaps) < 0) { \
>
> I haven't really spent any time digging, but that call to
> qemuTestCapsCacheInsert() looks odd to me. What exactly is the point
> in caching if we're going to be using a different set of capabilities
> pretty much every single time?
>
IIRC it's not really about caching or speed or whatever, it's required
to get our manually populated qemuCaps into the standard src/qemu driver
routines, which use virQEMUCapsCacheLookup everywhere
Thanks,
Cole
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
