From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55200) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e4qRr-0000lt-HM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:40:00 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e4qRq-0002zY-Lt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:39:59 -0400 References: <503559b438cd67b865d32d7d0577afc7ee15f32c.1508257445.git.jcody@redhat.com> <2de32e52-2c2a-5738-4624-d84bf7379c5f@redhat.com> <20171018150352.GE17962@localhost.localdomain> <20171018153416.GF17962@localhost.localdomain> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <07a69c86-aae3-9174-b646-dee04bf191de@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 17:39:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171018153416.GF17962@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 03/10] qemu-iotests: automatically clean up bash protocol servers List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jeff Cody Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kwolf@redhat.com, jsnow@redhat.com, stefanha@redhat.com, qemu-block@nongnu.org On 18/10/2017 17:34, Jeff Cody wrote: >> Well, I have no idea (hence the "not very constructive" part). I'm only >> "nacking" the sourcing of common.rc in the check script. >> >> The series improves the harness, but it also sets a very different >> separation between the tests and the harness (especially WRT the tests >> cleaning up after themselves). The level of separation would at least >> be clearer if check didn't include common.rc. >> > I can get rid of the common.rc includes prior to running the tests, but this > series really requires including common.rc in the spot you mentioned, for > automatically cleaning up protocol and QEMU processes. Understood, but does it have to be common.rc? Can it be a different file? That at least would still make it clear what check is doing (for example it is not launching qemu, which is part of common.rc). > That auto-cleanup is arguably a big improvement, as it has been relatively > common to run across tests that leave processes running in the background. > > I agree that it sets up different expectations, but that is at least partly > intentional. I don't really want to have to rely on individually written > tests to clean up properly. That is ~200 chances (and growing) for a > mistake; instead, this series moves that responsibility into a single place > to maintain. Understood, that's also why I'm all but nacking the entire series! Paolo