From: Laurent Vivier <lvivier@redhat.com>
To: "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>
Cc: "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"Thomas Huth" <thuth@redhat.com>,
"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@redhat.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Markus Armbruster" <armbru@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tests: improve performance of device-introspect-test
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 14:14:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b474592d-ab56-eef7-b340-df9881f3327c@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200709115906.GM3753300@redhat.com>
On 09/07/2020 13:59, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 01:44:45PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>> On 09/07/2020 13:28, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>>> Total execution time with "-m slow" and x86_64 QEMU, drops from 3
>>> minutes 15 seconds, down to 54 seconds.
>>>
>>> Individual tests drop from 17-20 seconds, down to 3-4 seconds.
>>>
>>> The cost of this change is that any QOM bugs resulting in the test
>>> failure will not be directly associated with the device that caused
>>> the failure. The test case is not frequently identifying such bugs
>>> though, and the cause is likely easily visible in the patch series
>>> that causes the failure. So overall the shorter running time is
>>> considered the more important factor.
>>
>> You don't report the test to test_device_intro_none() and
>> test_device_intro_abstract(): is it intended ?
>
> Since neither of those tests will result in any device being created there
> didn't seem any point in chceking the qtree output.
>
> IIUC, both of those tests should result in an error being reported from
> the device_add command, but I see nothing actually validates that is the
> case.
I think the purpose of these tests is precisely to ensure nothing is
created. This is why they check the qtree and not the reported error.
Markus?
Thanks,
Laurent
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-09 12:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-09 11:28 [PATCH] tests: improve performance of device-introspect-test Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-07-09 11:44 ` Laurent Vivier
2020-07-09 11:59 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-07-09 12:14 ` Laurent Vivier [this message]
2020-07-09 16:18 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-07-10 20:03 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-07-12 18:43 ` Thomas Huth
2020-07-13 8:47 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-07-14 7:57 ` Markus Armbruster
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=b474592d-ab56-eef7-b340-df9881f3327c@redhat.com \
--to=lvivier@redhat.com \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=philmd@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=thuth@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).