From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:38147) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S5gg2-00013s-DU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:58:58 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S5gfb-0000pi-PY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:58:53 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:65425) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S5gfb-0000p2-I3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:58:27 -0500 Message-ID: <4F58E603.4010906@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:01:55 +0100 From: Kevin Wolf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1331206372-10405-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> <1331206372-10405-3-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> <4F58D9F2.2020705@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] make check: Add qemu-iotests subset List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Am 08.03.2012 17:52, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi: > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> Am 08.03.2012 16:51, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi: >>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: >>>> Run the 'quick' group from qemu-iotests during 'make check'. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf >>>> --- >>>> tests/Makefile | 1 + >>>> tests/qemu-iotests.sh | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ >>> >>> I think tests/qemu-iotests-quick.sh would be a clearer name since this >>> is not a general-purpose qemu-iotests wrapper - it only works when >>> called from QEMU's root directory and only invokes the 'quick' group. >> >> Ok, I'll rename it. >> >>>> +./check -T -nocache -raw -g quick || ret=1 >>>> +./check -T -nocache -qcow2 -g quick || ret=1 >>> >>> Some love for qed? It adds 10s on my box but we're already up at 26s. >> >> I'm used to high expectations, but loving QED is a bit too much... ;-) >> >> Not sure what to do about all the formats. Ideally we would test all of >> them (at least those with better implementations, VMDK, VHD, VDI), but >> that would definitely take too long. I hope that in the not too distant >> future, QED will have a similar position to qcow1, but we may consider >> adding it for now. >> >> However, 'make check' is really the quick test that you run when you >> don't change anything in the image formats. If you do, you should do a >> full qemu-iotests run. So the important question is whether QED is >> likely to reveal any breakage outside block/* that the qcow2 tests >> wouldn't find. >> >> With the same reason we can probably drop the raw tests: qcow2 is the >> most featureful format, so any breakage should be visible there. Most of >> raw-posix.c should be part of the qcow2 tests already. > > In another thread I think Anthony suggested check-block. So if we > just test qcow2 here to make sure the block layer works, then we can > do a full run in check-block with raw, qed, and friends. Yes, I think that would make a lot of sense. Do you want me to include a check-block in v2 (that would be similar to qemu-iotests-quick.sh, just without -g quick and for more formats) or should we introduce something more sophisticated later? Kevin