On 20/12/2017 22:26, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 10:54:16AM +0800, Haozhong Zhang wrote: >> Can I understand that testing these two cases with host/guest CPUID >> mismatch (specially clwb and clflushopt flags) is invalid? If yes, >> please ignore this patch. > > I wouldn't say it's invalid to test what happens when the host > and guest CPUID don't match. The question is: is it useful to do > so? Are we testing different code paths when we do that? > > The inability to trigger #UD if the host CPUID includes the flag > sounds like a bug/limitation we would like to get rid of as soon > as hardware allow us to, and not a feature we need to test for. > > What's the right way to ensure memory.flat is always tested using > "-cpu host"? We should just add it to x86/unittests.cfg, which lets you specify the desired QEMU arguments. Otherwise, it's not run at all as part of my integration tests: diff --git a/x86/unittests.cfg b/x86/unittests.cfg index c6a383b..22c62d5 100644 --- a/x86/unittests.cfg +++ b/x86/unittests.cfg @@ -142,6 +142,11 @@ arch = x86_64 #[init] #file = init.flat +[memory] +file = memory.flat +extra_params = -cpu host +arch = x86_64 + [msr] file = msr.flat Thanks, Paolo
