On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 17:25 -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
On 12/20/2011 04:54 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
The three others test various aspects of the spapr-vio address handling.
Hmm, I got a test failure:
9) qemuxml2argvdata/qemuxml2argv-pseries-vio.xml ... FAILED 119) qemuxml2argvdata/qemuxml2argv-pseries-vio-user-assigned.xml ... FAILED 173) qemuxml2argvdata/qemuxml2argv-pseries-vio-address-clash.xml ... FAILED
This silences it, although I don't know if it is right. Also, your formatting is not consistent with the rest of the tests (2-space indent per added level of xml nesting).
Sorry, will fix.
Does this mean our XML is too strict (failure to validate something we parse), or is our domain_conf too loose (do we want unit to be mandatory, even if it ends up being unit 0)?
The code in the (entirely pointless) virDomainDeviceDriveAddressIsValid, explicitly says "0 is valid for all fields". And at least in my case 0 works fine. So I think the XML is too strict. cheers