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();
}
-
if (boot_once) {
qemu_boot_set(boot_once, &error_fatal);
qemu_register_reset(restore_boot_order, g_strdup(boot_order));
--
1.8.3.1
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
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.