[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v26 00/20] i386 cleanup PART 2
From: |
Claudio Fontana |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v26 00/20] i386 cleanup PART 2 |
Date: |
Mon, 8 Mar 2021 16:03:30 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 |
On 3/8/21 3:57 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 3/8/21 2:52 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>> On 3/8/21 2:27 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> Hi Claudio,
>>>
>>> On 3/8/21 1:57 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> anything else for me to do here?
>>>>
>>>> The latest rebased state of this series should be always available here:
>>>>
>>>> https://gitlab.com/hw-claudio/qemu/-/tree/i386_cleanup_8
>>>>
>>>> When it comes to the ARM cleanup series,
>>>> I would like to have the tests pass for ARM, before doing even more
>>>> changes, could you help me there Philippe?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe applying some of your changes on top would fix the failures? I
>>>> tried, for example with the arm-cpu-features ones, but it didn't work for
>>>> me..
>>>
>>> TBH I wrote these patches during my personal spare time and this
>>> became a real Pandora box that drained too much energy. I prefer
>>> to step back and focus on finishing smaller tasks before burning
>>> out. That said I appreciate your effort and am interested in
>>> following / reviewing your work.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Phil.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks Philippe for sharing this, and I agree completely, it is very
>> draining.
>>
>> The effort of making tests happy that run in artificial environments in
>> particular often feels to me
>> as too disconnected from actually ensuring that there is no real run time
>> regression.
>>
>> qtest_enabled() (implicitly, or explicitly via open-ended else statements)
>> is another painful variable to keep in mind in cpu and machine code, so it
>> is not helpful in my view.
>>
>> I'll try to push more to get the tests running again, if you have any
>> comment or idea, feel free to just point me in the right direction,
>> that is very valuable to me, even without working code.
>
> Basically I gave up after realizing from Daniel reviews that we need
> QMP commands to query QEMU at runtime its built-in features, so we
> have build-agnostic tests easier to maintain. I agree this is the
> best way to resolve this particular case, but also scale for various
> other cases.
>
Well, yes, but in order to get things to work, even just a kvm-build fix would
be good until we have the perfect solution, no?
We also fixed the tcg tests when doing this for i386, so I think we can fix
these issues for arm too.
But this doesn't mean that we don't need the QMP commands to query QEMU at
runtime for its "built-in"/module-loaded features.
We need that too, and I suspect this will be more and more needed by libvirt,
as QEMU modularizes.
I just think the two things could proceed in parallel..
Ciao,
Claudio
- [PATCH v26 14/20] i386: separate fpu_helper sysemu-only parts, (continued)
- [PATCH v26 14/20] i386: separate fpu_helper sysemu-only parts, Claudio Fontana, 2021/03/01
- [PATCH v26 17/20] i386: split off sysemu part of cpu.c, Claudio Fontana, 2021/03/01
- [PATCH v26 19/20] target/i386: gdbstub: only write CR0/CR2/CR3/EFER for sysemu, Claudio Fontana, 2021/03/01
- [PATCH v26 20/20] i386: make cpu_load_efer sysemu-only, Claudio Fontana, 2021/03/01
- [PATCH v26 15/20] i386: split svm_helper into sysemu and stub-only user, Claudio Fontana, 2021/03/01
- Re: [PATCH v26 00/20] i386 cleanup PART 2, no-reply, 2021/03/01
- Re: [PATCH v26 00/20] i386 cleanup PART 2, Claudio Fontana, 2021/03/08
- Re: [PATCH v26 00/20] i386 cleanup PART 2, Alex Bennée, 2021/03/08