From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:38456) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RgKDv-00050E-8x for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 12:57:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RgKDu-0000Tc-CS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 12:57:03 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:3002) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RgKDu-0000TO-5A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 12:57:02 -0500 Message-ID: <4EFCA9E6.3090706@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:56:54 +0200 From: Avi Kivity 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> <4EFB35AB.6040003@redhat.com> <4EFB4757.4020504@codemonkey.ws> <4EFB5138.5020502@redhat.com> <4EFC916E.4070902@codemonkey.ws> <4EFC9706.4090500@redhat.com> <4EFCA2AF.5000806@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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: Peter Maydell Cc: "lmr@redhat.com" , Stefan Hajnoczi , cleber@redhat.com, dlaor@redhat.com, qemu-devel , Gerd Hoffmann , Cleber Rosa On 12/29/2011 07:49 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 29 December 2011 17:26, Avi Kivity wrote: > > On 12/29/2011 07:22 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> My guess is that a serious attempt at tests covering all the > >> functionality of a device is probably approximately doubling > >> the effort required for a device model, incidentally. A > >> half-hearted attempt probably doesn't buy you much over > >> automating "boot the guest OS and prod its driver". > > > > Agreed. > > The next obvious question is: are we going to make a serious attempt? > (For instance, in a hypothetical tests-required world, would we > tell those nice folks from Samsung "no you can't land your > Exynos patches unless you write 9000+ lines of test cases" ? Yes. > I suspect that if we set the bar for new board and device models > that high then the result will largely be that we don't in fact > get new board or device models.) If just doubles the effort, I disagree. Even if that turns out to be the case, it's fine. Better to have a few good devices than dozens of bad ones. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function