On 6/4/21 9:01 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> On 6/4/21 8:32 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>> On 6/3/21 5:10 PM, Cleber Rosa Junior wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:29 AM Claudio Fontana <cfontana@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/3/21 2:29 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>>>>> v1 -> v2:
>>>>> * moved hyperv realizefn call before cpu expansion (Vitaly)
>>>>> * added more comments (Eduardo)
>>>>> * fixed references to commit ids (Eduardo)
>>>>>
>>>>> The combination of Commits:
>>>>> f5cc5a5c ("i386: split cpu accelerators from cpu.c"...)
>>>>
>>>>> 30565f10 ("cpu: call AccelCPUClass::cpu_realizefn in"...)
>>>>>
>>>>> introduced two bugs that break cpu max and host in the refactoring,
>>>>> by running initializations in the wrong order.
>>>>>
>>>>> This small series of two patches is an attempt to correct the situation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please provide your test results and feedback, thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> Claudio
>>>>>
>>>>> Claudio Fontana (2):
>>>>> i386: reorder call to cpu_exec_realizefn in x86_cpu_realizefn
>>>>> i386: run accel_cpu_instance_init as instance_post_init
>>>>>
>>>>> target/i386/cpu.c | 89 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>>>>> target/i386/kvm/kvm-cpu.c | 12 +++++-
>>>>> 2 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Btw, CI/CD is all green, but as mentioned, it does not seem to catch these
>>>> kind of issues.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hi Claudio,
>>>
>>> Not familiar with the specifics of this bug, but can it be caught by
>>> attempting to boot an image other than Windows? If so, we can consider
>>> adding a test along the lines of tests/acceptance/boot_linux_console.py.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> - Cleber.
>>
>> Hello Cleber,
>>
>> yes, all that seems to be required is the "host" cpu, q35 machine, and the firmware ./OVMF_CODE.secboot.fd and ./OVMF_VARS.secboot.fd :
>>
>> ./build/x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64 \
>> -cpu host \
>> -enable-kvm \
>> -m 4G \
>> -machine q35,smm=on \
>> -drive if=pflash,format=raw,readonly=on,unit=0,file="./OVMF_CODE.secboot.fd" \
>> -drive if=pflash,format=raw,unit=1,file="./OVMF_VARS.secboot.fd"
>>
>> With the bugged code, the firmware does not boot, and the cpu does not get into 64-bit long mode.
>> Applying the patches the firmware boots normally and we get the TianoCore Logo and text output.
>>
>> Adding something like -display none -serial stdio would also generate text in the OK case that could be "expected" by a test:
>>
>> BdsDxe: failed to load Boot0001 "UEFI QEMU DVD-ROM QM00005 " from PciRoot(0x0)/Pci(0x1F,0x2)/Sata(0x2,0xFFFF,0x0): Not Found
>>
>>>> Start PXE over IPv4.
>>
>> even without using any guest to boot at all, just the firmware.
>> I used this Fedora package for the test, containing the firmware: edk2-ovmf-20200801stable-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
>>
>> I looked briefly at tests/acceptance/boot_linux_console.py, but did not see where such a test of firmware could be inserted,
>> could you advise?
>
>
> Nm I think I got it, will create a new boot_OVMF_fc33.py test.
>
> Thanks, C
Question: do all of these acceptance tests require manual launch?
At least this is what I got in my CI at:
https://gitlab.com/hw-claudio/qemu
I seem to have to explicitly click on the acceptance tests to manually launch them.
Or am I missing something?
Thanks,
Claudio
