On Montag, 28. September 2020 18:38:00 CEST Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 28/09/20 15:35, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > >> As I said, the first two patches make total sense. They would be useful > >> for testing both packed and split virtqueues, for example. However, I > >> think the (useful) feature is being misused here. > > > > I haven't understood why my suggested mult-device use case imposes a > > misusage, but okay, unless I hear different opinions, I'll prepare a v2 > > with that (IMO hackish) CL fiddling instead in couple days or so. > > Because in my opinion the backend in use is a property of the test > rather than a property of the device.
Paolo, I'm back at square one after changing to single-device model as you suggested: GTest: run: /x86_64/pc/i440FX-pcihost/pci-bus-pc/pci-bus/virtio-9p-pci/pci- device/pci-device-tests/nop Run QEMU with: '-M pc -device virtio-9p-pci' (MSG: starting QEMU: exec x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64 -qtest unix:/tmp/ qtest-18032.sock -qtest-log /dev/null -chardev socket,path=/tmp/ qtest-18032.qmp,id=char0 -mon chardev=char0,mode=control -display none -M pc -device virtio-9p-pci -accel qtest) qemu-system-x86_64: -device virtio-9p-pci: 9pfs device couldn't find fsdev with the id = NULL Broken pipe This fundamental virtio-9p-pci test obviously needs a complete 9p command line, that is either a 'synth' driver one, or a 'local' one. But simply either picking one or another is inappropriate here. This test should run once for 'synth' and once for 'local'. Still not convinced that the multi-device route is the way to go? Best regards, Christian Schoenebeck
