Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

CPUID dump check test case #714

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

ehabkost
Copy link
Member

@ehabkost ehabkost commented Aug 8, 2013

This adds a new test function to the cpuid.py test module, where the
CPUID data exposed by QEMU is compared with a full CPUID dump extracted
previously.

The new test code ensures that there are no ABI changes for a given
machine-type + CPU model combination, between QEMU versions.

There are some known QEMU bugs and past ABI changes that require
ignoring some differences. Those cases handled as rules that set
ignore_cpuid_leaves on qemu_cpu.cfg.

Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
This adds a new test function to the cpuid.py test module, where the
CPUID data exposed by QEMU is compared with a full CPUID dump extracted
previously.

The new test code ensures that there are no ABI changes for a given
machine-type + CPU model combination, between QEMU versions.

The reference dumps were generated using the build-qemu-and-dump-cpus,
and copied using the copy-ref-dumps script.

There are some known QEMU bugs and past ABI changes that require
ignoring some differences. Those cases handled as rules that set
ignore_cpuid_leaves on qemu_cpu.cfg.

Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
"""
Compare full CPUID dump data
"""
machine_type = params.get("machine_type_to_check","")
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This will have the same result as you expect:
machine_type = params['machine_type_to_check']

This is a new params feature :)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, if you write this as @ypu mentioned, you don't have to manually throw error.TestNAError as you did here, the params class will take care of throwing an exception based on TestNAError.

@lmr
Copy link
Member

lmr commented Aug 12, 2013

Pushed to next, as the comments made are pretty minor and can be changed on a follow up patch, thanks!

@lmr lmr closed this Aug 12, 2013
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants