From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47047) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dXjma-0000tt-GY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 03:52:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dXjmZ-0003qy-QF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 03:52:32 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:60140) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dXjmZ-0003pN-Jj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 03:52:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 15:46:43 +0800 From: Fam Zheng Message-ID: <20170719074643.GA30261@lemon> References: <20170717063521.GA7393@lemon> <20170717231721.GE2585@lemon> <20170718094247.GD11927@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170718094247.GD11927@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Status and RFC of patchew testings on QEMU List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Daniel P. Berrange" Cc: Peter Maydell , Thomas Huth , QEMU Developers On Tue, 07/18 10:42, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:37:30AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On 18 July 2017 at 10:11, Thomas Huth wrote: > > > Could the test be rewritten to provide a proper timeout handling > > > instead? Tests should clearly fail after a while instead of hanging > > > forever... > > > Or maybe we could add some magic that the troublesome tests are not > > > executed if a certain environment variable is set, so we could skip them > > > in these automated setups here? > > > > I think it's always going to be possible that some bug in > > QEMU results in a test hanging -- so it must be down to > > the test harness to deal with hanging tests. And then > > once you have that functionality in the test harness it > > doesn't matter quite so much whether an individual test > > has its own timeout handling or not. > > If the tests are all inside a docker container, then dealing with a hanging > test is no more difficult than waiting a suitable amount of time and then > telling docker to destroy the container. Yes, the context here is non-x86 or non-Linux which are not as easy to run docker. Running tests in a VM would be great, but the harness is missing. Fam