From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35119) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d5v1a-00070e-V0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 10:13:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d5v1a-0005wS-4Q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 10:13:02 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 16:12:54 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20170503141254.GA4191@noname.redhat.com> References: <1493411622-5343-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> <1493411622-5343-15-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> <972a9484-fa2e-620f-35b3-de3919b587d4@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <972a9484-fa2e-620f-35b3-de3919b587d4@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 14/34] iotests: Launch qemu-nbd with -e 42 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: qemu-block@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Max Reitz --0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am 29.04.2017 um 00:08 hat Eric Blake geschrieben: > On 04/28/2017 03:33 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > From: Max Reitz > >=20 > > There is no reason for the qemu-nbd server used for tests not to accept > > an arbitrary number of clients. In fact, test 181 will require it to > > accept two clients at the same time (and thus it fails before this > > patch). >=20 > Quick question: >=20 > Is this mention of test 181 the same test that occurs earlier in the > pull request as 8/34? If so, should the series have been reordered for > bisectability? If not, should the commit message be touched up? >=20 > At any rate, bisectability of qemu-iotests is less of a concern than > bisectability of 'make check' success, so I don't think your answer > invalidates the pull request. Yes, it's the same test 181 and if someone had noticed before I sent the pull request, I might have reordered the patches, but I don't think there's any practical bisectability problem with introducing a qemu-iotests case that fails on NBD. If you bisect, you typically bisect for a specific setup and test case rather than running the full set of qemu-iotests. Kevin --0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJZCeVmAAoJEH8JsnLIjy/WzJMQAKK58ETR650Rz5bCxQ1jjqKT yIEg2Tt5BAzLoC+cPbH4OOZgYTuTccwnNktyhaGPwpnFITIBvco53NlZOyw9ormF Tl9+7LOoyfuL15ZU5XCm688/H3EVpf0h5HzOBm+V8doWIviLBT2lnOJUENc/1G3S 3wiViOCuOXOYwBx84WOxn78o1gJU2cEAdihQvci3Mu6LsjsUF4+J0kSwDQTmCVm4 kPrR+F27KSrAMZkfMzugoNmyu//sFJ1tQz/68/Hpc74GKiPGymEOBcazuyHGlIrp 2Z8Y/Vi/EJOveIdZGTbxCdvXkHnbKvSkFaVIj986nI0Vc68KDcPVJ2nzl1p/P1o7 SQ6gj2IsTe0ZRaztXW3Fpwxm11Ce8f5apHpmdOeLEE45FOHljpes0hyXZ/QgKtEd YBMPU4U7+2S9goxJ34vLrKT/DtV2YhoKZKau/TamG6y9YlHjt2BcTxRX5dk6v8MU wZIyCImNSJWrMSfqkJV26HFIpzoM6dveoAE2jOiZrYY+HgwpeyYIqERw6/JKqnxX oSXWZtozKL5QwR4wogKLu8edEDmReV0dSM1lifRNOjSSde3T4x2/maVWM/FGb1Mv C/dTA2tqQnS5tnDCxBt40XDnw+giQn8OmdtDYS9AVobGgpeikCtCGlh71hVEap2S jDxb0MQwDEslOk0+VUMZ =3p0a -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE--