qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wainer dos Santos Moschetta <wainersm@redhat.com>
To: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>,
	Murilo Opsfelder Araujo <muriloo@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: "Peter Maydell" <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
	"Cleber Rosa" <crosa@redhat.com>,
	"QEMU Developers" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
	"Caio Carrara" <ccarrara@redhat.com>,
	"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Acceptance tests: host arch to target arch name mapping
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 17:33:30 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <cc4cd4bb-e7b2-a7e3-eab0-210ece6b1bd4@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181017200558.GJ31060@habkost.net>


On 10/17/2018 05:05 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 04:43:15PM -0300, Murilo Opsfelder Araujo wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 07:40:51PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On 17 October 2018 at 18:38, Cleber Rosa <crosa@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/17/18 12:29 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 01:34:41PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>>>> So, why does the test code need to care? It's not clear
>>>>>> from the patch... My expectation would be that you'd
>>>>>> just test all the testable target architectures,
>>>>>> regardless of what the host architecture is.
>>>>> I tend to agree.  Maybe the right solution is to get rid of the
>>>>> os.uname().  I think the default should be testing all QEMU
>>>>> binaries that were built, and the host architecture shouldn't
>>>>> matter.
>>> Yes, looking at os.uname() also seems like an odd thing
>>> for the tests to be doing here. The test framework
>>> should be as far as possible host-architecture agnostic.
>>> (For some of the KVM cases there probably is a need to
>>> care, but those are exceptions, not the rule.)
>>>
>>>> I'm in favor of exercising all built targets, but that seems to me to be
>>>> on another layer, above the test themselves. This change is about the
>>>> behavior of a test when not told about the target arch (and thus binary)
>>>> it should use.
>>> At that level, I think the right answer is "tell the user
>>> they need to specify the qemu executable they are trying to test".
>>> In particular, there is no guarantee that the user has actually
>>> built the executable for the target that corresponds to the
>>> host, so it doesn't work to try to default to that anyway.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> -- PMM
>>>
>> I agree with Peter.  We can make qemu_bin parameter mandatory.  If it is not
>> given, error out.  Trying to guess it based on host architecture turns out to be
>> troublesome.
>>
>> If we decide to follow this approach of not guessing QEMU binary, we should
>> update docs/devel/testing.rst to make it crystal clear qemu_bin parameter is
>> mandatory.
> That's not a perfect solution to me, but it sounds better than
> using uname() and silently making a decision for the user.
>

As someone that have been writing acceptance tests recently, I find very 
convenient it picking the qemu binary from current build automatically.

On the other hand, as an CI system or tester (I presume), I would want 
to run tests on all target built. Or at least have control over it.

I don't know if the architectures in question are so broadly used on 
workstations that would justify this patch. Maybe we can stick with 
current uname() approach (and if not able to find the binary, well, you 
should point do it), and rather introduce a mechanism for running tests 
against several targets (satisfying CI needs)?

I hope it helps,
Wainer.

  reply	other threads:[~2018-10-17 20:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-10-16 23:22 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Acceptance tests: host arch to target arch name mapping Cleber Rosa
2018-10-17 10:09 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2018-10-17 16:23   ` Cleber Rosa
2018-10-17 12:34 ` Peter Maydell
2018-10-17 16:29   ` Eduardo Habkost
2018-10-17 17:38     ` Cleber Rosa
2018-10-17 18:40       ` Peter Maydell
2018-10-17 19:05         ` Cleber Rosa
2018-10-17 19:20           ` Peter Maydell
2018-10-17 19:09         ` Eduardo Habkost
2018-10-17 19:25           ` Cleber Rosa
2018-10-17 19:48             ` Eduardo Habkost
2018-10-17 20:54               ` Cleber Rosa
2018-10-17 22:12                 ` Eduardo Habkost
2018-10-17 23:17                   ` Cleber Rosa
2018-10-18  2:02                     ` Eduardo Habkost
2018-10-17 20:46           ` Murilo Opsfelder Araujo
2018-10-17 20:59             ` Cleber Rosa
2018-10-17 22:15               ` Eduardo Habkost
2018-10-17 22:47                 ` Cleber Rosa
2018-10-18  1:54                   ` Eduardo Habkost
2018-10-17 19:43         ` Murilo Opsfelder Araujo
2018-10-17 20:05           ` Eduardo Habkost
2018-10-17 20:33             ` Wainer dos Santos Moschetta [this message]
2018-10-17 21:10               ` Cleber Rosa
2018-10-17 21:34                 ` Eduardo Habkost
2018-10-17 21:16               ` Eduardo Habkost
2018-10-17 21:34                 ` Cleber Rosa
2018-10-17 16:31   ` Cleber Rosa
2018-10-17 16:51     ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2018-10-17 17:46       ` Cleber Rosa
2018-10-17 14:54 ` Wainer dos Santos Moschetta
2018-10-17 18:24   ` Cleber Rosa

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=cc4cd4bb-e7b2-a7e3-eab0-210ece6b1bd4@redhat.com \
    --to=wainersm@redhat.com \
    --cc=ccarrara@redhat.com \
    --cc=crosa@redhat.com \
    --cc=ehabkost@redhat.com \
    --cc=muriloo@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
    --cc=philmd@redhat.com \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    /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).