From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues Subject: Re: [KVM-autotest][PATCH] cgroup test with KVM guest +first subtests Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:36:50 -0300 Message-ID: <4E7C8B72.20404@redhat.com> References: <1316708986-12045-1-git-send-email-ldoktor@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: autotest@test.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-autotest@redhat.com, akong@redhat.com, jzupka@redhat.com To: Lukas Doktor Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:29486 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753721Ab1IWNgx (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:36:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1316708986-12045-1-git-send-email-ldoktor@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 09/22/2011 01:29 PM, Lukas Doktor wrote: > Hi guys, > > Do you remember the discussion about cgroup testing in autotest vs. LTP? I hope there won't be any doubts about this one as ground_test (+ first 2 subtests) are strictly focused on cgroups features enforced on KVM guest systems. Also more subtests will follow if you approve the test structure (blkio_throttle, memory, cpus...). Yes, absolutely. > > No matter whether we drop or keep the general 'cgroup' test. The 'cgroup_common.py' library can be imported either from 'client/tests/cgroup/' directory or directly from 'client/tests/kvm/tests/' directory. I don't think we really need to drop the test. It's useful anyway, even though there are LTP tests that sort of cover ir. > > The modifications of 'cgroup_common.py' library is backward 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 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 mention the pull request URL on the message. That's it, we are still trying out things, so if this doesn't work out, we'll update the process. Is it possible that you do that and rebase your patches? Oh, and since patchwork is still out due to DNS outage, could you guys re-spin your client-server patches using the same process I mentioned? Thank you! Lucas