[PATCH-for-4.2,v10,10/11] tests: add dummy ACPI tables for arm/virt board

This patch is in preparation for adding numamem and memhp tests
to arm/virt board so that 'make check' is happy. This may not
be required once the scripts are run and new tables are
generated with ".numamem" and ".memhp" extensions.

Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
---
I am not sure this is the right way to do this. But without this, when
the numamem and memhp tests are added, you will get,

Looking for expected file 'tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT.numamem'
Looking for expected file 'tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT'
**
ERROR:tests/bios-tables-test.c:327:load_expected_aml: assertion failed: (exp_sdt.aml_file)

---
 tests/data/acpi/virt/SLIT | Bin 0 -> 48 bytes
 tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT | Bin 0 -> 224 bytes
 2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 tests/data/acpi/virt/SLIT
 create mode 100644 tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT

GIT binary patch
literal 224
zcmWFzatwLEz`(%x)yd!4BUr&HBEUHqD8>jB1F=Cg2*ZH@DxXmUMHZ-x3$7Gd2B8jU
X02q8=hbcr=2NT6lGiu<Mhsgo}c|r;S

literal 0
HcmV?d00001

On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 at 09:58, Shameer Kolothum
<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> This patch is in preparation for adding numamem and memhp tests
> to arm/virt board so that 'make check' is happy. This may not
> be required once the scripts are run and new tables are
> generated with ".numamem" and ".memhp" extensions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
> ---
> I am not sure this is the right way to do this. But without this, when
> the numamem and memhp tests are added, you will get,
>
> Looking for expected file 'tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT.numamem'
> Looking for expected file 'tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT'
> **
> ERROR:tests/bios-tables-test.c:327:load_expected_aml: assertion failed: (exp_sdt.aml_file)
>
> ---
>  tests/data/acpi/virt/SLIT | Bin 0 -> 48 bytes
>  tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT | Bin 0 -> 224 bytes
>  2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 tests/data/acpi/virt/SLIT
>  create mode 100644 tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT

Do the tests pass with this patch and without the
patch that adds the tests? (That is, can we keep the
two patches separate without breaking bisection, or
do we need to squash them together?)

I'll leave it to somebody who understands the ACPI
tests stuff to answer whether there's a better way to
do this.

thanks
-- PMM

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:57:06 +0100
Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 at 09:58, Shameer Kolothum
> <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> > This patch is in preparation for adding numamem and memhp tests
> > to arm/virt board so that 'make check' is happy. This may not
> > be required once the scripts are run and new tables are
> > generated with ".numamem" and ".memhp" extensions.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > I am not sure this is the right way to do this. But without this, when
> > the numamem and memhp tests are added, you will get,
> >
> > Looking for expected file 'tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT.numamem'
> > Looking for expected file 'tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT'
> > **
> > ERROR:tests/bios-tables-test.c:327:load_expected_aml: assertion failed: (exp_sdt.aml_file)
> >
> > ---
> >  tests/data/acpi/virt/SLIT | Bin 0 -> 48 bytes
> >  tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT | Bin 0 -> 224 bytes
> >  2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >  create mode 100644 tests/data/acpi/virt/SLIT
> >  create mode 100644 tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT  
> 
> Do the tests pass with this patch and without the
> patch that adds the tests? (That is, can we keep the
> two patches separate without breaking bisection, or
> do we need to squash them together?)
> 
> I'll leave it to somebody who understands the ACPI
> tests stuff to answer whether there's a better way to
I'd squash this patch into 11/11 test case,
CCing Michael (since he's the one who applies ACPI patches)

> do this.
> 
> thanks
> -- PMM
>

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 03:50:15PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:57:06 +0100
> Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 at 09:58, Shameer Kolothum
> > <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > This patch is in preparation for adding numamem and memhp tests
> > > to arm/virt board so that 'make check' is happy. This may not
> > > be required once the scripts are run and new tables are
> > > generated with ".numamem" and ".memhp" extensions.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
> > > ---
> > > I am not sure this is the right way to do this. But without this, when
> > > the numamem and memhp tests are added, you will get,
> > >
> > > Looking for expected file 'tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT.numamem'
> > > Looking for expected file 'tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT'
> > > **
> > > ERROR:tests/bios-tables-test.c:327:load_expected_aml: assertion failed: (exp_sdt.aml_file)
> > >
> > > ---
> > >  tests/data/acpi/virt/SLIT | Bin 0 -> 48 bytes
> > >  tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT | Bin 0 -> 224 bytes
> > >  2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > >  create mode 100644 tests/data/acpi/virt/SLIT
> > >  create mode 100644 tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT  
> > 
> > Do the tests pass with this patch and without the
> > patch that adds the tests? (That is, can we keep the
> > two patches separate without breaking bisection, or
> > do we need to squash them together?)
> > 
> > I'll leave it to somebody who understands the ACPI
> > tests stuff to answer whether there's a better way to
> I'd squash this patch into 11/11 test case,


Pls don't - the way to add this is to add the files in question to
tests/bios-tables-test-allowed-diff.h.

Maintainer will create a separate commit updating
the binaries and removing them from the whitelist.

This way things like rebase work seemlessly.


> CCing Michael (since he's the one who applies ACPI patches)
> 
> > do this.
> > 
> > thanks
> > -- PMM
> >

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Qemu-devel
> [mailto:qemu-devel-bounces+shameerali.kolothum.thodi=huawei.com@nongn
> u.org] On Behalf Of Michael S. Tsirkin
> Sent: 11 September 2019 14:56
> To: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>; Samuel Ortiz
> <sameo@linux.intel.com>; Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>;
> QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
> <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>; Linuxarm
> <linuxarm@huawei.com>; Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhaosl@gmail.com>;
> qemu-arm <qemu-arm@nongnu.org>; xuwei (O) <xuwei5@huawei.com>; Eric
> Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>; sebastien.boeuf@intel.com; Laszlo Ersek
> <lersek@redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH-for-4.2 v10 10/11] tests: add dummy ACPI
> tables for arm/virt board
> 
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 03:50:15PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:57:06 +0100
> > Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 at 09:58, Shameer Kolothum
> > > <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This patch is in preparation for adding numamem and memhp tests
> > > > to arm/virt board so that 'make check' is happy. This may not
> > > > be required once the scripts are run and new tables are
> > > > generated with ".numamem" and ".memhp" extensions.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum
> <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > I am not sure this is the right way to do this. But without this, when
> > > > the numamem and memhp tests are added, you will get,
> > > >
> > > > Looking for expected file 'tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT.numamem'
> > > > Looking for expected file 'tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT'
> > > > **
> > > > ERROR:tests/bios-tables-test.c:327:load_expected_aml: assertion failed:
> (exp_sdt.aml_file)
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > >  tests/data/acpi/virt/SLIT | Bin 0 -> 48 bytes
> > > >  tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT | Bin 0 -> 224 bytes
> > > >  2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > > >  create mode 100644 tests/data/acpi/virt/SLIT
> > > >  create mode 100644 tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT
> > >
> > > Do the tests pass with this patch and without the
> > > patch that adds the tests? (That is, can we keep the
> > > two patches separate without breaking bisection, or
> > > do we need to squash them together?)
> > >
> > > I'll leave it to somebody who understands the ACPI
> > > tests stuff to answer whether there's a better way to
> > I'd squash this patch into 11/11 test case,
> 
> 
> Pls don't - the way to add this is to add the files in question to
> tests/bios-tables-test-allowed-diff.h.

IIRC, I have tried that but didn't work. I think the reason being, these
are new test cases for arm/virt and both SRAT and SLIT tables are not
present in the tests/data/acpi/virt folder.

As you can see the error is different,

> > > > Looking for expected file 'tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT.numamem'
> > > > Looking for expected file 'tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT'
> > > > **
> > > > ERROR:tests/bios-tables-test.c:327:load_expected_aml: assertion failed:

Not sure I missed anything though.

Thanks,
Shameer

> Maintainer will create a separate commit updating
> the binaries and removing them from the whitelist.
> 
> This way things like rebase work seemlessly.
> 
> 
> > CCing Michael (since he's the one who applies ACPI patches)
> >
> > > do this.
> > >
> > > thanks
> > > -- PMM
> > >

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 09:55:34AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 03:50:15PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:57:06 +0100
> > Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 at 09:58, Shameer Kolothum
> > > <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This patch is in preparation for adding numamem and memhp tests
> > > > to arm/virt board so that 'make check' is happy. This may not
> > > > be required once the scripts are run and new tables are
> > > > generated with ".numamem" and ".memhp" extensions.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > I am not sure this is the right way to do this. But without this, when
> > > > the numamem and memhp tests are added, you will get,
> > > >
> > > > Looking for expected file 'tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT.numamem'
> > > > Looking for expected file 'tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT'
> > > > **
> > > > ERROR:tests/bios-tables-test.c:327:load_expected_aml: assertion failed: (exp_sdt.aml_file)
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > >  tests/data/acpi/virt/SLIT | Bin 0 -> 48 bytes
> > > >  tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT | Bin 0 -> 224 bytes
> > > >  2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > > >  create mode 100644 tests/data/acpi/virt/SLIT
> > > >  create mode 100644 tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT  
> > > 
> > > Do the tests pass with this patch and without the
> > > patch that adds the tests? (That is, can we keep the
> > > two patches separate without breaking bisection, or
> > > do we need to squash them together?)
> > > 
> > > I'll leave it to somebody who understands the ACPI
> > > tests stuff to answer whether there's a better way to
> > I'd squash this patch into 11/11 test case,
> 
> 
> Pls don't - the way to add this is to add the files in question to
> tests/bios-tables-test-allowed-diff.h.
> 
> Maintainer will create a separate commit updating
> the binaries and removing them from the whitelist.
> 
> This way things like rebase work seemlessly.


OK?

Can you post v11 like this? I'll ack then.

> 
> > CCing Michael (since he's the one who applies ACPI patches)
> > 
> > > do this.
> > > 
> > > thanks
> > > -- PMM
> > >

On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 16:11, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 09:55:34AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 03:50:15PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:57:06 +0100
> > > Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > Do the tests pass with this patch and without the
> > > > patch that adds the tests? (That is, can we keep the
> > > > two patches separate without breaking bisection, or
> > > > do we need to squash them together?)
> > > >
> > > > I'll leave it to somebody who understands the ACPI
> > > > tests stuff to answer whether there's a better way to
> > > I'd squash this patch into 11/11 test case,
> >
> >
> > Pls don't - the way to add this is to add the files in question to
> > tests/bios-tables-test-allowed-diff.h.
> >
> > Maintainer will create a separate commit updating
> > the binaries and removing them from the whitelist.

Who is "maintainer" in this part of the process? Why
can't the submitter just create the patches and send them?

> > This way things like rebase work seemlessly.
>
>
> OK?
>
> Can you post v11 like this? I'll ack then.

thanks
-- PMM