Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 28/28] tests/qmp-test: blacklist sev specific qmp commands

[Brijesh Singh]

On 3/13/18 4:07 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 09/03/2018 11:12, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>> * Eduardo Habkost (address@hidden) wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 02:18:55PM -0600, Brijesh Singh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 3/8/18 11:08 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 06:49:01AM -0600, Brijesh Singh wrote:
>>>>>> Blacklist the following commands to fix the 'make check' failure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> query-sev-launch-measure: it returns meaninful data only when we launch
>>>>>> SEV guest otherwise the command returns an error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> query-sev: it return an error when SEV is not available on host (e.g non
>>>>>> X86 platform or KVM is disabled at the build time)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> query-sev-capabilities: it returns an error when SEV feature is not
>>>>>> available on host machine.
>>>>> We generally expect 'make check' to succeed on every single patch
>>>>> in a series, so that 'git bisect' doesn't break.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you should add each command to the blacklist in the same commit
>>>>> that introduced the failure in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, I can quickly send the updated patch series to address your this
>>>> concern, but before spamming everyone's inbox I was wondering if I can
>>>> get some indication whether this series will make into 2.12 merge.
>>>>
>>>> Paolo, Eduardo and Richard,
>>>>
>>>> Most of the changes are in x86 directory hence any thought if you are
>>>> considering this series for 2.12 ? I have been testing the series with
>>>> and without SEV support and so far have not ran into any issue. if you
>>>> are not planning to pull this series in 2.12 then I will wait a bit
>>>> longer to get more feedback before sending the updates to address
>>>> Daniel's comment. thanks
>>> Trying to merge it before 2.12 soft freeze (next Tuesday) still
>>> looks like a reasonable goal to me.  What do others think?
>> I've only looked at a few general comments and things but it looks like
>> it's getting there;  I don't think it's had many comments from the KVM
>> side yet.
> The KVM side is a pretty linear use of the kernel API.  I'm not very
> happy with the debug API for MemoryRegions (but it's not really
> Brijesh's fault), so my plan would be to merge it without debug support.

Thanks Paolo, I am working to drop the complete debug support and will
send series very soon. I need to run some quick smoke test to make sure
I don't break SEV guest support.