From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [OSSTEST PATCH 2/2] make-flight: create the vNUMA
	HVM test job
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 09:23:55 +0100
Message-ID: <1444119835.5302.34.camel@citrix.com>
References: <20151001230750.15271.26071.stgit@Solace.station>
	<20151001231739.15271.2845.stgit@Solace.station>
	<22034.42627.406577.225518@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
	<20151005164141.GM29124@zion.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=7140158d9=Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>)
	id 1ZjNXU-0001pB-GF
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 08:24:00 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20151005164141.GM29124@zion.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Mon, 2015-10-05 at 17:41 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 05:34:11PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Dario Faggioli writes ("[OSSTEST PATCH 2/2] make-flight: create the
> > vNUMA HVM test job"):
> > > as a variant of regular Debian HVM jobs.
> > > 
> > > For now, the vNUMA topology is just hardcoded
> > > here, and it is 4 vCPUs and 2 vNUMA nodes. How
> > > to split resources is left to the test
> > > implementation (right now, it is just evenly
> > > split them between the 2 virtual nodes).
> > 
> > The make-flight changes here seem reasonable.
> > 
> > > Note that we do not yet support save/restore
> > > and migration for vNUMA enabled guests, so
> > > this test will fail (and in fact, it's added
> > > to the non-blocking list).
> > 
> > However, this is wrong.  Instead, you should arrange for
> > ts-migrate-support-check to fail in this case.
> > 
> 
> My two cents.
> 
> We don't need to make ts-migrate-support-check fail. It is fine for the
> actual migration test to fail at the beginning as it won't block the
> push gate. It's conceivable that vNUMA guest will be able to migrate in
> the future. When that comes true, the actual migration test will pass.

I think the point was that if the migration tests fails then all subsequent
test steps won't get run at all (apart from leak check & log collection
etc).

Whereas if ts-migrate-support-check fails then the migrations will be
skipped and those other tests will be run.

Ian.