qemu-s390x
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v3 13/24] tests/functional: Convert the s390x avocado tests i


From: Thomas Huth
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/24] tests/functional: Convert the s390x avocado tests into standalone tests
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 14:08:16 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird

On 13/08/2024 14.04, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 02/08/2024 15.25, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 1/8/24 19:38, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 07:11:01PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 30/7/24 19:03, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
From: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>

These tests use archive.lzma_uncompress() from the Avocado utils,
so provide a small helper function for this, based on the
standard lzma module from Python instead.

And while we're at it, replace the MD5 hashes in the topology test
with proper SHA256 hashes, since MD5 should not be used anymore
nowadays.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
---
   MAINTAINERS                                   |  4 +-
   tests/functional/meson.build                  |  6 ++
   tests/functional/qemu_test/utils.py           | 14 +++
   .../test_s390x_ccw_virtio.py}                 | 79 ++++++++---------
   .../test_s390x_topology.py}                   | 86 ++++++++-----------
   5 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 95 deletions(-)
   rename tests/{avocado/machine_s390_ccw_virtio.py => functional/test_s390x_ccw_virtio.py} (85%)
   mode change 100644 => 100755
   rename tests/{avocado/s390_topology.py => functional/test_s390x_topology.py} (88%)
   mode change 100644 => 100755

Conversion LGTM, so:

Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>

Now while testing I'm getting errors, but maybe pre-existing...

What host arch / OS are you running tests from ?

I got through the full set of testing on Fedora x86_64, so
wondering if something differs.

Linux s390x but I'm not in the KVM group, I need to find
another place to run these (or ask Alex :P).

Sounds like a pre-existing problem ... I guess the test should check whether it can access /dev/kvm before trying to use it...?

Ah, no, I missed your comment in your earlier patch that kvm_available() already checks this ... so the problem must be something else?

 Thomas





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]