From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:45533) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RgJao-0005Xz-LK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 12:16:39 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RgJam-0001Iv-Vt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 12:16:38 -0500 Received: from mail-gx0-f173.google.com ([209.85.161.173]:41368) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RgJam-0001Ir-Qx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 12:16:36 -0500 Received: by ggnk1 with SMTP id k1so10210441ggn.4 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 09:16:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4EFCA071.4000807@codemonkey.ws> Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:16:33 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4EEF70B4.3070109@us.ibm.com> <4EF73EF5.8050606@redhat.com> <4EF88EC0.8020301@codemonkey.ws> <4EF8FC88.70809@redhat.com> <4EFA4829.4000207@redhat.com> <4EFA80EA.3050405@codemonkey.ws> <4EFAA2A2.4000107@redhat.com> <4EFB2764.7040006@codemonkey.ws> <4EFB2F36.2090408@redhat.com> <4EFB46DD.4000905@codemonkey.ws> <4EFB5014.9030609@redhat.com> <4EFC94A9.1040300@codemonkey.ws> <4EFC994C.9030205@redhat.com> <4EFC9B05.3060606@codemonkey.ws> <4EFC9E88.5030909@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4EFC9E88.5030909@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [ANNOUNCE] qemu-test: a set of tests scripts for QEMU List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Avi Kivity Cc: "lmr@redhat.com" , Stefan Hajnoczi , cleber@redhat.com, dlaor@redhat.com, qemu-devel , Gerd Hoffmann , Cleber Rosa On 12/29/2011 11:08 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 12/29/2011 06:53 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>> In what way is your specifically configured kernel's TCP stack better >>> than the random distro's kernel's? >> >> >> I firmly believe that with qtest we'll end up eventually building a >> libOS to make it easier to write qtest tests. >> >> Overtime, that libOS will become increasingly complex up until the >> point where it approaches something that feels like an actual OS. >> Effort spent developing libOS is a cost to building test cases. >> >> By using Linux and a minimal userspace as our libOS, we can avoid >> spending a lot of time building a sophisticated libOS. If we need >> advanced libOS features, we just use qemu-test. If it's just a matter >> of poking some registers on a device along, we just use qtest. > > Would there be device-level tests in qemu-test? qemu-jeos has a kernel build environment for the target so it is also possible to build userspace C programs and/or kernel modules so you could also write guest tests in C. So it may actually be reasonable to write a special virtio-test kernel module actually. Regards, Anthony Liguori