Re: [PULL 5/5] m68k: add Virtual M68k Machine

[Max Reitz]

On 19.03.21 11:51, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 19.03.21 11:50, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> > Le 19/03/2021 à 10:20, Max Reitz a écrit :
> > > On 19.03.21 07:32, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > > > On 18/03/2021 18.28, Max Reitz wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > >   From that it follows that I don’t see much use in testing 
> > > > > specific devices either.  Say there’s
> > > > > a platform that provides both virtio-pci and virtio-mmio, the 
> > > > > default (say virtio-pci) is fine
> > > > > for the iotests. I see little value in testing virtio-mmio as 
> > > > > well.  (Perhaps I’m short-sighted,
> > > > > though.)
> > > >
> > > > That's a fair point. But still, if someone compiled QEMU only with a 
> > > > target that only provided
> > > > virtio-mmio, the iotests should not fail when running "make check".
> > > > To avoid that we continue playing whack-a-mole here in the future, 
> > > > maybe it would be better to
> > > > restrict the iotests to the "main" targets only, e.g. modify 
> > > > check-block.sh so that the tests only
> > > > run with x86, aarch64, s390x and ppc64 ?
> > >
> > > Right, that would certainly be the simplest solution.
> >
> > The problem with that is we can't run the tests if target-list doesn't 
> > contain one of these targets.
>
> Yes, but is that really a problem?

I should add: The thing is, I wouldn’t really call it a problem.  But 
still, as I said before somewhere in this thread, in theory we want to 
allow running the tests with every configuration.  It’s just that it’s a 
tradeoff between how much it helps and how much work it is to make them 
work.  (I gave s390 as an example, where effort was undertaken to make 
the iotests work.)

You’ve sent patches, so it seems you’re willing to invest the work. 
Sounds good to me, as long as we know it won’t rot.

Max