tests/avocado/avocado_qemu/__init__.py | 27 +++++----- tests/avocado/tuxrun_baselines.py | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 2 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
Commit c0c8687ef0fd990db8db1655a8a6c5a5e35dd4bb disabled the boot_linux.py test-case due to which the code coverage for ppc decreased by around 2%. As per the discussion on https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/87sfdpqcy4.fsf@linaro.org/ it was mentioned that the baseline test for ppc64 could be modified to make up this 2% code coverage. This patchset attempts to achieve this 2% code coverage by adding various device command line arguments (to ./qemu-system-ppc64) in the tuxrun_baselines.py test-case. Changes since v3: - Create a common ppc64_common_tuxrun routine in tuxrun_baselines.py and call that from the ppc64 and ppc64le test case routines. Kautuk Consul (2): avocado_qemu/__init__.py: factor out the qemu-img finding tests/avocado/tuxrun_baselines.py: improve code coverage for ppc64 tests/avocado/avocado_qemu/__init__.py | 27 +++++----- tests/avocado/tuxrun_baselines.py | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 2 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) -- 2.25.1
Kautuk Consul <kconsul@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > Commit c0c8687ef0fd990db8db1655a8a6c5a5e35dd4bb disabled the > boot_linux.py test-case due to which the code coverage for ppc > decreased by around 2%. As per the discussion on > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/87sfdpqcy4.fsf@linaro.org/ it > was mentioned that the baseline test for ppc64 could be modified > to make up this 2% code coverage. This patchset attempts to achieve > this 2% code coverage by adding various device command line > arguments (to ./qemu-system-ppc64) in the tuxrun_baselines.py > test-case. I've pulled the first patch into my testing/next, but the second conflicts with the inflight patch which adds checksums: Message-Id: <20230417134321.3627231-3-alex.bennee@linaro.org> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 14:43:17 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v4 2/6] tests/avocado: use the new snapshots for testing From: =?UTF-8?q?Alex=20Benn=C3=A9e?= <alex.bennee@linaro.org> You can either wait and re-base once the PR goes in (I'll send a pre-PR Monday) or do you can re-base directly off my branch at: https://gitlab.com/stsquad/qemu/-/tree/testing/next and send the tested patch mentioning its based off my testing/next and I'll include it in the pre-PR. > > Changes since v3: > - Create a common ppc64_common_tuxrun routine in tuxrun_baselines.py > and call that from the ppc64 and ppc64le test case routines. > > Kautuk Consul (2): > avocado_qemu/__init__.py: factor out the qemu-img finding > tests/avocado/tuxrun_baselines.py: improve code coverage for ppc64 > > tests/avocado/avocado_qemu/__init__.py | 27 +++++----- > tests/avocado/tuxrun_baselines.py | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > 2 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) -- Alex Bennée Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro
On 2023-04-21 14:29:38, Alex Bennée wrote: > > Kautuk Consul <kconsul@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > > > Commit c0c8687ef0fd990db8db1655a8a6c5a5e35dd4bb disabled the > > boot_linux.py test-case due to which the code coverage for ppc > > decreased by around 2%. As per the discussion on > > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/87sfdpqcy4.fsf@linaro.org/ it > > was mentioned that the baseline test for ppc64 could be modified > > to make up this 2% code coverage. This patchset attempts to achieve > > this 2% code coverage by adding various device command line > > arguments (to ./qemu-system-ppc64) in the tuxrun_baselines.py > > test-case. > > I've pulled the first patch into my testing/next, but the second > conflicts with the inflight patch which adds checksums: > > Message-Id: <20230417134321.3627231-3-alex.bennee@linaro.org> > Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 14:43:17 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH v4 2/6] tests/avocado: use the new snapshots for testing > From: =?UTF-8?q?Alex=20Benn=C3=A9e?= <alex.bennee@linaro.org> > > You can either wait and re-base once the PR goes in (I'll send a pre-PR > Monday) or do you can re-base directly off my branch at: > > https://gitlab.com/stsquad/qemu/-/tree/testing/next > > and send the tested patch mentioning its based off my testing/next and > I'll include it in the pre-PR. Sent a v5 for this rebased off https://gitlab.com/stsquad/qemu/-/tree/testing/next. Thanks. > > > > > Changes since v3: > > - Create a common ppc64_common_tuxrun routine in tuxrun_baselines.py > > and call that from the ppc64 and ppc64le test case routines. > > > > Kautuk Consul (2): > > avocado_qemu/__init__.py: factor out the qemu-img finding > > tests/avocado/tuxrun_baselines.py: improve code coverage for ppc64 > > > > tests/avocado/avocado_qemu/__init__.py | 27 +++++----- > > tests/avocado/tuxrun_baselines.py | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > 2 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > -- > Alex Bennée > Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro >
Adding Harsh Prateek Bora. On 2023-04-20 23:23:20, Kautuk Consul wrote: > Commit c0c8687ef0fd990db8db1655a8a6c5a5e35dd4bb disabled the > boot_linux.py test-case due to which the code coverage for ppc > decreased by around 2%. As per the discussion on > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/87sfdpqcy4.fsf@linaro.org/ it > was mentioned that the baseline test for ppc64 could be modified > to make up this 2% code coverage. This patchset attempts to achieve > this 2% code coverage by adding various device command line > arguments (to ./qemu-system-ppc64) in the tuxrun_baselines.py > test-case. > > Changes since v3: > - Create a common ppc64_common_tuxrun routine in tuxrun_baselines.py > and call that from the ppc64 and ppc64le test case routines. > > Kautuk Consul (2): > avocado_qemu/__init__.py: factor out the qemu-img finding > tests/avocado/tuxrun_baselines.py: improve code coverage for ppc64 > > tests/avocado/avocado_qemu/__init__.py | 27 +++++----- > tests/avocado/tuxrun_baselines.py | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > 2 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.25.1 > >
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.