5 Jan
2017
5 Jan
'17
7:57 p.m.
05-Jan-17 19:53, John Ferlan пишет:
On 12/09/2016 09:28 AM, Maxim Nestratov wrote:
As specifying both QEMU_CAPS_NO_KVM_PIT and QEMU_CAPS_KVM_PIT_TICK_POLICY capabilities has no practical sense in tests, and we already have tests for QEMU_CAPS_KVM_PIT_TICK_POLICY, it's better to add a separate one with QEMU_CAPS_NO_KVM_PIT set. My suggested alteration:
tests: Add "no-kvm-pit-device" testcase
Add a test case for when the QEMU_CAPS_NO_KVM_PIT capability is set. This capability is mutually exclusive to QEMU_CAPS_KVM_PIT_TICK_POLICY and results in the same output regardless of whether "discard" or "delay" was specified in the guest XML for 'tickpolicy'.
ACK -
John
Your wording is better. Thanks for the review. Maxim