From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46480) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dpxPw-0004tJ-M5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 10:04:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dpxPs-0003bu-4r for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 10:04:28 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41312) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dpxPr-0003bH-VI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 10:04:24 -0400 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 22:04:20 +0800 From: Fam Zheng Message-ID: <20170907140420.GE25123@lemon.lan> References: <20170907081158.4063-1-famz@redhat.com> <20170907081158.4063-3-famz@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] docker: Enable features explicitly in test-full List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alex =?iso-8859-1?Q?Benn=E9e?= , Philippe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathieu-Daud=E9?= On Thu, 09/07 08:37, Eric Blake wrote: > On 09/07/2017 03:11 AM, Fam Zheng wrote: > > Also avoid "set -e". > > > > Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng > > --- > > tests/docker/test-full | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > > 1 file changed, 75 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tests/docker/test-full b/tests/docker/test-full > > index 05f0d491d1..bd095ad91b 100755 > > --- a/tests/docker/test-full > > +++ b/tests/docker/test-full > > @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ > > -#!/bin/bash -e > > +#!/bin/bash > > When you drop 'set -e'... > > > # > > -# Compile all the targets. > > +# Compile all the targets with as many features enabled as possible > > # > > -# Copyright (c) 2016 Red Hat Inc. > > +# Copyright 2016, 2017 Red Hat Inc. > > # > > # Authors: > > # Fam Zheng > > @@ -15,5 +15,75 @@ > > > > cd "$BUILD_DIR" > > ...then you should explicitly check for failure after commands where you > really do not want to continue execution if they failed. I'd write this: We can probably tolerate the failure of cd, but it might be better if we are strict on that. Will update. Fam