From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=33674 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P9I5O-00015S-Dl
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:55:11 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1P9I5M-00067H-O2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:55:10 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:17774)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1P9I5M-000670-Gu
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:55:08 -0400
Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o9MDt72e027252
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:55:07 -0400
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:55:04 -0200
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] First part of autoconfy series:
	cleanup tests/
Message-ID: <20101022115504.29636b79@doriath>
In-Reply-To: <4CC19763.6010501@redhat.com>
References: <1287649120-30740-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<20101022112634.72b672df@doriath> <4CC193DA.50904@redhat.com>
	<20101022114455.255d9a75@doriath> <4CC19763.6010501@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:53:39 +0200
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 10/22/2010 03:44 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > >  We could also have check-i386, check-qmp, etc. and check would simply
> > >  call all of them.
> >
> > That would be perfect, I think. I mean, if we could stick only to check
> > to do all our unit-testing
> 
> Well, the current "make test" is more integration testing than unit 
> testing, so I'm not sure check can work for that.  But autotest can, 
> which is why I mentioned it.

Ah, got it.