From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60710) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1drkqU-0005QW-HE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 09:03:19 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1drkqL-0000qm-7y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 09:03:18 -0400 References: <20170809215510.22802-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20170809215510.22802-8-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20170912104005.GF29136@localhost.localdomain> <20170912125727.GK29136@localhost.localdomain> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 15:02:53 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170912125727.GK29136@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 07/12] qemu-iotests: disintegrate more parts of common.config List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org On 12/09/2017 14:57, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 12.09.2017 um 14:31 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben: >> On 12/09/2017 12:40, Kevin Wolf wrote: >>> Am 09.08.2017 um 23:55 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben: >>>> Split "check" parts from tests part. >>>> >>>> For the directory setup, the actual computation of directories goes >>>> in "check", while the sanity checks go in the tests. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini >>> >>> Same comment as for patch 1, we may want to keep this working. >> >> Can you explain what is the use case? For local symlinks I (sort of) >> understand it, but not here. This as far as I understand is code that >> never runs. > > Sorry, somehow I replied to the wrong patch... > > This was meant as a comment for patch 9 ('do not search for binaries in > the current directory'). > >> My preferred alternatives would be one of these: >> >> - add a patch 13 that restores the local symlink feature on top of the >> cleaned up code. >> >> - later, rewrite "check" in Python now that it is clear what code is >> part of it and what code is part of the tests. > > Do you really think that removing and the reintroducing the feature is > easier than just keeping it in the first place? Nah, sorry, I was confused -- I thought the feature was in some common.* file, but it's straight in "check". I'll get rid of patch 9 and the './qemu' hunk of patch 1. Paolo