On 11/07/19 07:49, Alexander Graf wrote: >> I agree that it would belong more in qtest, but tests in not exactly the >> right place is better than no tests. > > The problem with qtest is that it tests QEMU device models from a QEMU > internal view. Not really: fundamentally it tests QEMU device models with stimuli that come from another process in the host, rather than code that runs in a guest. It does have hooks into QEMU's internal view (mostly to intercept interrupts and advance the clocks), but the main feature of the protocol is the ability to do memory reads and writes. > I am much more interested in the guest visible side of things. If > kvmtool wanted to implement a PL031, it should be able to execute the > same test that we run against QEMU, no? Well, kvmtool could also implement the qtest protocol; perhaps it should (probably as a different executable that shares the device models with the main kvmtool executable). There would still be issues in reusing code from the QEMU tests, since it has references to QEMU command line options. > If kvm-unit-test is the wrong place for it, we would probably want to > have a separate testing framework for guest side unit tests targeting > emulated devices. > > Given how nice the kvm-unit-test framework is though, I'd rather rename > it to "virt-unit-test" than reinvent the wheel :). Definitely, or even just "hwtest". :) With my QEMU hat I would prefer the test to be a qtest, but with my kvm-unit-tests hat on I see no reason to reject this test. Sorry if this was not clear. Paolo _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
