From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cole Robinson Subject: Re: [PATCH kvm-unit-tests v2 0/4] Have x86-run parse unittests.cfg Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:40:52 -0400 Message-ID: <516C0364.8090308@redhat.com> References: <20130415083013.GC3914@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> <516BDACE.9030005@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Kevin Wolf , kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Paolo Bonzini Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59140 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750956Ab3DONkx (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:40:53 -0400 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3FDerwN004524 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:40:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <516BDACE.9030005@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 04/15/2013 06:47 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > 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. > Yeah the only missing 'feature' that my series has over Kevin's is re-writing the script in python :) I'm happy with Kevin's series as well. - Cole