| Message ID | 1534258018-22859-6-git-send-email-thuth@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Various qtest-related patches and a mc146818rtc fix | expand |
On 14/08/2018 16:46, Thomas Huth wrote: > When running qtests with -nodefaults, we are not interested in > these 'XYZ has no peer' messages. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> > --- > vl.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c > index 16b913f..7055df3 100644 > --- a/vl.c > +++ b/vl.c > @@ -4559,11 +4559,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp) > * (2) CONFIG_SLIRP not set, in which case the implicit "-net nic" > * sets up a nic that isn't connected to anything. > */ > - if (!default_net) { > + if (!default_net && (!qtest_enabled() || has_defaults)) { > net_check_clients(); > } > Why does it have no peer? Not a nack, just curiosity. Paolo
On 08/14/2018 05:33 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 14/08/2018 16:46, Thomas Huth wrote: >> When running qtests with -nodefaults, we are not interested in >> these 'XYZ has no peer' messages. >> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> >> --- >> vl.c | 3 +-- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c >> index 16b913f..7055df3 100644 >> --- a/vl.c >> +++ b/vl.c >> @@ -4559,11 +4559,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp) >> * (2) CONFIG_SLIRP not set, in which case the implicit "-net nic" >> * sets up a nic that isn't connected to anything. >> */ >> - if (!default_net) { >> + if (!default_net && (!qtest_enabled() || has_defaults)) { >> net_check_clients(); >> } >> > > Why does it have no peer? Not a nack, just curiosity. The machines which emulate an embedded system often always create a NIC (since it is hard-wired on the board, not optional). But since there is no back-end on the host side with "-nodefaults", the net_check_clients() function complains in this case. For example: $ microblaze-softmmu/qemu-system-microblaze -nodefaults -S qemu-system-microblaze: warning: nic xlnx.xps-ethernetlite.0 has no peer Thomas
On 14/08/2018 17:43, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 08/14/2018 05:33 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> On 14/08/2018 16:46, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> When running qtests with -nodefaults, we are not interested in >>> these 'XYZ has no peer' messages. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> vl.c | 3 +-- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c >>> index 16b913f..7055df3 100644 >>> --- a/vl.c >>> +++ b/vl.c >>> @@ -4559,11 +4559,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp) >>> * (2) CONFIG_SLIRP not set, in which case the implicit "-net nic" >>> * sets up a nic that isn't connected to anything. >>> */ >>> - if (!default_net) { >>> + if (!default_net && (!qtest_enabled() || has_defaults)) { >>> net_check_clients(); >>> } >>> >> >> Why does it have no peer? Not a nack, just curiosity. > > The machines which emulate an embedded system often always create a NIC > (since it is hard-wired on the board, not optional). But since there is > no back-end on the host side with "-nodefaults", the net_check_clients() > function complains in this case. Ok, the has_defaults test then makes sense. Is the qtest_enabled() part still needed, or is the message unnecessary even in normal operation? Paolo
On 08/14/2018 05:57 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 14/08/2018 17:43, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 08/14/2018 05:33 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> On 14/08/2018 16:46, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>> When running qtests with -nodefaults, we are not interested in >>>> these 'XYZ has no peer' messages. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> >>>> --- >>>> vl.c | 3 +-- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c >>>> index 16b913f..7055df3 100644 >>>> --- a/vl.c >>>> +++ b/vl.c >>>> @@ -4559,11 +4559,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp) >>>> * (2) CONFIG_SLIRP not set, in which case the implicit "-net nic" >>>> * sets up a nic that isn't connected to anything. >>>> */ >>>> - if (!default_net) { >>>> + if (!default_net && (!qtest_enabled() || has_defaults)) { >>>> net_check_clients(); >>>> } >>>> >>> >>> Why does it have no peer? Not a nack, just curiosity. >> >> The machines which emulate an embedded system often always create a NIC >> (since it is hard-wired on the board, not optional). But since there is >> no back-end on the host side with "-nodefaults", the net_check_clients() >> function complains in this case. > > Ok, the has_defaults test then makes sense. Is the qtest_enabled() part > still needed, or is the message unnecessary even in normal operation? I think it is still needed, since you could also screw up your command line parameters after specifying -nodefaults (e.g. "-nodefaults -net nic" without giving an additional "-net user" or something similar). Thomas
On 14/08/2018 18:01, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 08/14/2018 05:57 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> On 14/08/2018 17:43, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> On 08/14/2018 05:33 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>> On 14/08/2018 16:46, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>>> When running qtests with -nodefaults, we are not interested in >>>>> these 'XYZ has no peer' messages. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> vl.c | 3 +-- >>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c >>>>> index 16b913f..7055df3 100644 >>>>> --- a/vl.c >>>>> +++ b/vl.c >>>>> @@ -4559,11 +4559,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp) >>>>> * (2) CONFIG_SLIRP not set, in which case the implicit "-net nic" >>>>> * sets up a nic that isn't connected to anything. >>>>> */ >>>>> - if (!default_net) { >>>>> + if (!default_net && (!qtest_enabled() || has_defaults)) { >>>>> net_check_clients(); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why does it have no peer? Not a nack, just curiosity. >>> >>> The machines which emulate an embedded system often always create a NIC >>> (since it is hard-wired on the board, not optional). But since there is >>> no back-end on the host side with "-nodefaults", the net_check_clients() >>> function complains in this case. >> >> Ok, the has_defaults test then makes sense. Is the qtest_enabled() part >> still needed, or is the message unnecessary even in normal operation? > > I think it is still needed, since you could also screw up your command > line parameters after specifying -nodefaults (e.g. "-nodefaults -net > nic" without giving an additional "-net user" or something similar). True. Though it cannot happen with -nic, so another possibility is to give it only if -net was used? Paolo Paolo
On 08/14/2018 06:03 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 14/08/2018 18:01, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 08/14/2018 05:57 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> On 14/08/2018 17:43, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>> On 08/14/2018 05:33 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>>> On 14/08/2018 16:46, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>>>> When running qtests with -nodefaults, we are not interested in >>>>>> these 'XYZ has no peer' messages. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> vl.c | 3 +-- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c >>>>>> index 16b913f..7055df3 100644 >>>>>> --- a/vl.c >>>>>> +++ b/vl.c >>>>>> @@ -4559,11 +4559,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp) >>>>>> * (2) CONFIG_SLIRP not set, in which case the implicit "-net nic" >>>>>> * sets up a nic that isn't connected to anything. >>>>>> */ >>>>>> - if (!default_net) { >>>>>> + if (!default_net && (!qtest_enabled() || has_defaults)) { >>>>>> net_check_clients(); >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why does it have no peer? Not a nack, just curiosity. >>>> >>>> The machines which emulate an embedded system often always create a NIC >>>> (since it is hard-wired on the board, not optional). But since there is >>>> no back-end on the host side with "-nodefaults", the net_check_clients() >>>> function complains in this case. >>> >>> Ok, the has_defaults test then makes sense. Is the qtest_enabled() part >>> still needed, or is the message unnecessary even in normal operation? >> >> I think it is still needed, since you could also screw up your command >> line parameters after specifying -nodefaults (e.g. "-nodefaults -net >> nic" without giving an additional "-net user" or something similar). > > True. Though it cannot happen with -nic, so another possibility is to > give it only if -net was used? Sorry, I don't quite get you ... this is a generic check in vl.c, how should this code know whether the NICs have been specified with -nic or -net? Thomas
On 14/08/2018 18:11, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 08/14/2018 06:03 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> On 14/08/2018 18:01, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> On 08/14/2018 05:57 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>> On 14/08/2018 17:43, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>>> The machines which emulate an embedded system often always create a NIC >>>>> (since it is hard-wired on the board, not optional). But since there is >>>>> no back-end on the host side with "-nodefaults", the net_check_clients() >>>>> function complains in this case. >>>> >>>> [...] is the message unnecessary even in normal operation? >>> >>> I think it is still needed, since you could also screw up your command >>> line parameters after specifying -nodefaults (e.g. "-nodefaults -net >>> nic" without giving an additional "-net user" or something similar). >> >> True. Though it cannot happen with -nic, so another possibility is to >> give it only if -net was used? > > Sorry, I don't quite get you ... this is a generic check in vl.c, how > should this code know whether the NICs have been specified with -nic or > -net? case QEMU_OPTION_net: had_net = true; ... if (!default_net && had_net) { net_check_clients(); } :) Paolo
On 08/14/2018 07:10 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 14/08/2018 18:11, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 08/14/2018 06:03 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> On 14/08/2018 18:01, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>> On 08/14/2018 05:57 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>>> On 14/08/2018 17:43, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>>>> The machines which emulate an embedded system often always create a NIC >>>>>> (since it is hard-wired on the board, not optional). But since there is >>>>>> no back-end on the host side with "-nodefaults", the net_check_clients() >>>>>> function complains in this case. >>>>> >>>>> [...] is the message unnecessary even in normal operation? >>>> >>>> I think it is still needed, since you could also screw up your command >>>> line parameters after specifying -nodefaults (e.g. "-nodefaults -net >>>> nic" without giving an additional "-net user" or something similar). >>> >>> True. Though it cannot happen with -nic, so another possibility is to >>> give it only if -net was used? >> >> Sorry, I don't quite get you ... this is a generic check in vl.c, how >> should this code know whether the NICs have been specified with -nic or >> -net? > > case QEMU_OPTION_net: > had_net = true; > ... > > if (!default_net && had_net) { > net_check_clients(); > } > > :) Ah, ok, thanks, I somehow only had that nd_table stuff in mind... That change looks reasonable to me, I'll give it a try! Thomas
On 08/14/2018 07:10 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 14/08/2018 18:11, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 08/14/2018 06:03 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> On 14/08/2018 18:01, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>> On 08/14/2018 05:57 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>>> On 14/08/2018 17:43, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>>>> The machines which emulate an embedded system often always create a NIC >>>>>> (since it is hard-wired on the board, not optional). But since there is >>>>>> no back-end on the host side with "-nodefaults", the net_check_clients() >>>>>> function complains in this case. >>>>> >>>>> [...] is the message unnecessary even in normal operation? >>>> >>>> I think it is still needed, since you could also screw up your command >>>> line parameters after specifying -nodefaults (e.g. "-nodefaults -net >>>> nic" without giving an additional "-net user" or something similar). >>> >>> True. Though it cannot happen with -nic, so another possibility is to >>> give it only if -net was used? >> >> Sorry, I don't quite get you ... this is a generic check in vl.c, how >> should this code know whether the NICs have been specified with -nic or >> -net? > > case QEMU_OPTION_net: > had_net = true; > ... > > if (!default_net && had_net) { > net_check_clients(); > } Looking at net_check_clients(), I think we're also checking -netdev devices there, so we likely should call net_check_clients() independently of whether -net has been specified by the user or not... I think I'll best keep the patch in its current shape. Thomas
diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c index 16b913f..7055df3 100644 --- a/vl.c +++ b/vl.c @@ -4559,11 +4559,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp) * (2) CONFIG_SLIRP not set, in which case the implicit "-net nic" * sets up a nic that isn't connected to anything. */ - if (!default_net) { + if (!default_net && (!qtest_enabled() || has_defaults)) { net_check_clients(); } - if (boot_once) { qemu_boot_set(boot_once, &error_fatal); qemu_register_reset(restore_boot_order, g_strdup(boot_order));
When running qtests with -nodefaults, we are not interested in these 'XYZ has no peer' messages. Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> --- vl.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)