On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 17:25 -0700, Eric Blake wrote: > On 12/20/2011 04:54 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > >> The three others test various aspects of the spapr-vio address handling. > >> > > > > Hmm, I got a test failure: > > > > 9) qemuxml2argvdata/qemuxml2argv-pseries-vio.xml ... FAILED > > 119) qemuxml2argvdata/qemuxml2argv-pseries-vio-user-assigned.xml ... FAILED > > 173) qemuxml2argvdata/qemuxml2argv-pseries-vio-address-clash.xml ... FAILED > > This silences it, although I don't know if it is right. Also, your > formatting is not consistent with the rest of the tests (2-space indent > per added level of xml nesting). Sorry, will fix. > Does this mean our XML is too strict (failure to validate something we > parse), or is our domain_conf too loose (do we want unit to be > mandatory, even if it ends up being unit 0)? The code in the (entirely pointless) virDomainDeviceDriveAddressIsValid, explicitly says "0 is valid for all fields". And at least in my case 0 works fine. So I think the XML is too strict. cheers
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list