| Message ID | 20220513085108.3567310-1-davidgow@google.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | e7eaffce47b7db72b077630dbe836f0c4132496d |
| Delegated to: | Brendan Higgins |
| Headers | show |
| Series | kunit: tool: Use qemu-system-i386 for i386 runs | expand |
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 1:51 AM David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote: > > We're currently using the x86_64 qemu for i386 builds. While this is not > incorrect, it's probably more sensible to use the i386 one, which will > at least fail properly if we accidentally were to build a 64-bit kernel. > > Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> Tested-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> Works for me: [10:55:58] Testing complete. Ran 201 tests: passed: 165, skipped: 36 [10:55:58] Elapsed time: 21.268s total, 0.003s configuring, 4.009s building, 16.967s running Side note: I ran into an unrelated bug where running on QEMU in general seems to hang when you try to filter to a test suite that doesn't exist. I've confirmed it happens on i386 before this patch, and it at least also happens on x86_64.
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 10:56 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 1:51 AM David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote: > > > > We're currently using the x86_64 qemu for i386 builds. While this is not > > incorrect, it's probably more sensible to use the i386 one, which will > > at least fail properly if we accidentally were to build a 64-bit kernel. > > > > Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> > > Tested-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> > > Works for me: > [10:55:58] Testing complete. Ran 201 tests: passed: 165, skipped: 36 > [10:55:58] Elapsed time: 21.268s total, 0.003s configuring, 4.009s > building, 16.967s running > > Side note: > I ran into an unrelated bug where running on QEMU in general seems to > hang when you try to filter to a test suite that doesn't exist. > I've confirmed it happens on i386 before this patch, and it at least > also happens on x86_64. Ah, this "unrelated bug" is my fault, specifically commit a02353f49162 ("kunit: bail out of test filtering logic quicker if OOM"). The use of _any_ filter glob is broken on kunit.py + QEMU. Fix is https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220513183707.97290-1-dlatypov@google.com/
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 4:51 AM David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote: > > We're currently using the x86_64 qemu for i386 builds. While this is not > incorrect, it's probably more sensible to use the i386 one, which will > at least fail properly if we accidentally were to build a 64-bit kernel. > > Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> A very sensible thing to do! When I was writing this, I probably copied and pasted the x64_64 qemu config and then forgot to change everything to i386 - whoops. Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/qemu_configs/i386.py b/tools/testing/kunit/qemu_configs/i386.py index 52b80be40e4b..4463ebefd567 100644 --- a/tools/testing/kunit/qemu_configs/i386.py +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/qemu_configs/i386.py @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ QEMU_ARCH = QemuArchParams(linux_arch='i386', kconfig=''' CONFIG_SERIAL_8250=y CONFIG_SERIAL_8250_CONSOLE=y''', - qemu_arch='x86_64', + qemu_arch='i386', kernel_path='arch/x86/boot/bzImage', kernel_command_line='console=ttyS0', extra_qemu_params=[])
We're currently using the x86_64 qemu for i386 builds. While this is not incorrect, it's probably more sensible to use the i386 one, which will at least fail properly if we accidentally were to build a 64-bit kernel. Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> --- tools/testing/kunit/qemu_configs/i386.py | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)