From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:38425) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S5ftc-00056Y-Ji for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:08:58 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S5fta-000838-QF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:08:52 -0500 Received: from mail-pw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.160.45]:51129) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S5fta-00080a-K4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:08:50 -0500 Received: by pbcuo5 with SMTP id uo5so1953463pbc.4 for ; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:08:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F58D98A.10304@codemonkey.ws> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:08:42 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4F582EDB.1040608@redhat.com> <4F58B5CB.8040503@codemonkey.ws> <20120308144958.GA25750@t420s.optimusnet> <4F58C897.5020405@codemonkey.ws> <4F58D441.60106@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4F58D441.60106@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Future goals for autotest and virtualization tests List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues , QEMU devel , Scott Zawalski , Cleber Rosa , "kvm-autotest@redhat.com" , Ademar Reis On 03/08/2012 09:46 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 08.03.2012 15:56, schrieb Anthony Liguori: >>> I particularly agreed with basically everything you said on that >>> discussion regarding test simplification (I had just joined the >>> team back then). To me, autotest has been focusing on QE-level, >>> leaving the developer-level test requirements out. Now we're >>> attacking this new front, and a lot of the requirements are >>> indeed from that discussion. >> >> If you want to talk about this in terms of "requirements", my requirement is for >> "developer-level" tests to live in qemu.git and be integrated into make check. > > Actually, I think make check should be something that runs _really_ > quickly. We'll probably want another make check-full or something that > runs more extensive tests. Yeah, my qtest series has a few make check variants that all run with different speeds. > > That's the reason why the patch I proposed earlier today runs only a few > qemu-iotests cases during make check. The whole thing would already take > too long for everyone to use it. If people run some quick sanity tests > for all of qemu plus the full tests in the subsystem in which they're > making changes, I think that would be the best we can realistically expect. Yup, agreed. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > Kevin