From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?B?THVrw6HFoSBEb2t0b3I=?= Subject: Re: [KVM-autotest][PATCH] cgroup test with KVM guest +first subtests Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:02:12 +0200 Message-ID: <4E7C9F74.4050408@redhat.com> References: <1316708986-12045-1-git-send-email-ldoktor@redhat.com> <4E7C8B72.20404@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: autotest@test.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-autotest@redhat.com, akong@redhat.com, jzupka@redhat.com To: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:11742 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752865Ab1IWPCQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:02:16 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4E7C8B72.20404@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Dne 23.9.2011 15:36, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues napsal(a): > On 09/22/2011 01:29 PM, Lukas Doktor wrote: >> Hi guys, >> >> Do you remember the discussion about cgroup testing in autotest vs.=20 >> LTP? I hope there won't be any doubts about this one as ground_test=20 >> (+ first 2 subtests) are strictly focused on cgroups features=20 >> enforced on KVM guest systems. Also more subtests will follow if you= =20 >> approve the test structure (blkio_throttle, memory, cpus...). > > Yes, absolutely. > >> >> No matter whether we drop or keep the general 'cgroup' test. The=20 >> 'cgroup_common.py' library can be imported either from=20 >> 'client/tests/cgroup/' directory or directly from=20 >> 'client/tests/kvm/tests/' directory. > > I don't think we really need to drop the test. It's useful anyway,=20 > even though there are LTP tests that sort of cover ir. Well I have some other ones in a queue. My focus is now on the KVM=20 specific tests, but I might send couple more general cgroup tests later= =2E.. > >> >> The modifications of 'cgroup_common.py' library is backward=20 >> compatible with general cgroup test. >> >> See the commits for details. > > Now that we moved to github, I'd like to go with the following model=20 > of contribution: > > 1) You create a user on github if you don't have one > 2) Create a public autotest fork > 3) Commit the changes to a topic branch appropriately named > 4) Make a pull request to autotest:master > 5) You still send the patches to the mailing list normally, but=20 > mention the pull request URL on the message. > > That's it, we are still trying out things, so if this doesn't work=20 > out, we'll update the process. Is it possible that you do that and=20 > rebase your patches? > > Oh, and since patchwork is still out due to DNS outage, could you guy= s=20 > re-spin your client-server patches using the same process I mentioned= ?=20 > Thank you! > > Lucas Hi Lucas, pull request sent: https://github.com/autotest/autotest/pull/6 I'll remind Ji=C5=99=C3=AD to do the same with the client-server patche= s... Cheers, Luk=C3=A1=C5=A1