Re: [PATCH RESEND v7 9/9] tests/qtest: Fix tests when no KVM or TCG are present

[Fabiano Rosas]

Fabiano Rosas <farosas@suse.de> writes:

> Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> On 28/02/2023 20.26, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
>>> It is possible to have a build with both TCG and KVM disabled due to
>>> Xen requiring the i386 and x86_64 binaries to be present in an aarch64
>>> host.
>>> 
>>> If we build with --disable-tcg on the aarch64 host, we will end-up
>>> with a QEMU binary (x86) that does not support TCG nor KVM.
>>> 
>>> Fix tests that crash or hang in the above scenario. Do not include any
>>> test cases if TCG and KVM are missing.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Fabiano Rosas <farosas@suse.de>
>>> ---
>> ...
>>> diff --git a/tests/qtest/boot-serial-test.c b/tests/qtest/boot-serial-test.c
>>> index 3aef3a97a9..45490f5931 100644
>>> --- a/tests/qtest/boot-serial-test.c
>>> +++ b/tests/qtest/boot-serial-test.c
>>> @@ -17,6 +17,9 @@
>>>   #include "libqtest.h"
>>>   #include "libqos/libqos-spapr.h"
>>>   
>>> +static bool has_tcg;
>>> +static bool has_kvm;
>>
>> Any special reason for putting these here instead of making them local 
>> variables in the main() function?
>>
>
> Yes, Phillipe was doing work in the same file and I put it here to
> minimize conflicts.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230119145838.41835-5-philmd@linaro.org
>
>>>   static const uint8_t bios_avr[] = {
>>>       0x88, 0xe0,             /* ldi r24, 0x08   */
>>>       0x80, 0x93, 0xc1, 0x00, /* sts 0x00C1, r24 ; Enable tx */
>>> @@ -285,6 +288,13 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>       const char *arch = qtest_get_arch();
>>>       int i;
>>>   
>>> +    has_tcg = qtest_has_accel("tcg");
>>> +    has_kvm = qtest_has_accel("kvm");
>>> +
>>> +    if (!has_tcg && !has_kvm) {
>>> +        return 0;
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>>       g_test_init(&argc, &argv, NULL);
>>
>> Could you please put the new code below the g_test_init() ?
>> Just to avoid the problem that has been reported here:
>>
>>   https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2023-02/msg08331.html
>>
>
> I could, but I don't understand why we need this. What does having
> "code" before g_test_init() causes? Should I move the qtest_get_arch()
> that's already there as well?

Oh, the issue is the early return? I guess it makes sense.