From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH kvm-unit-tests v2 0/4] Have x86-run parse unittests.cfg Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:47:42 +0200 Message-ID: <516BDACE.9030005@redhat.com> References: <20130415083013.GC3914@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Cole Robinson , kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Kevin Wolf Return-path: Received: from mail-qa0-f54.google.com ([209.85.216.54]:63643 "EHLO mail-qa0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753398Ab3DOKrz (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Apr 2013 06:47:55 -0400 Received: by mail-qa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id j8so338763qah.6 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 03:47:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130415083013.GC3914@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Il 15/04/2013 10:30, Kevin Wolf ha scritto: > Am 14.04.2013 um 20:18 hat Cole Robinson geschrieben: >> > First two patches are trivial bits. Rest rewrites x86-run in python, >> > which then makes it easy to parse unittests.cfg. This makes it >> > simpler to invoke individual unittests the same way autotest does. >> > >> > Kevin has a similar series[1], but I'm reposting this for completeness. >> > >> > [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg89471.html > As long as it doesn't take away functionality, it wouldn't even conflict > with my series. Unfortunately, it seems it does: The old x86-run > forwarded any additional options to the qemu binary, now there isn't any > way to specify options on the command line, but it always does its magic. > > The other problem I mentioned in the other thread is that you assume > that the kernel file name and the configuration section are the same. > The test cases that exist in the configuration file with several > different argument strings are a strong hint that this assumption is > invalid. > > Maybe it's really best to keep x86-run the thin wrapper that is today > and add a second script like my series does for a higher level tool. > (Though I must admit that this wasn't by design, my script was written > before x86-run existed and used to be standalone. I just called into > x86-run with this rebase to avoid duplicating things. But now it > actually seems to be the right choice, even if accidental.) I also prefer Kevin's series, though rewriting run_tests.sh in Python would probably make it nicer. Paolo > Also, Signed-off-by is missing throughout the series?