tests/check-block.sh | 16 +++++++++++++++- tests/qemu-iotests/041 | 3 ++- tests/qemu-iotests/183 | 1 + tests/qemu-iotests/group | 18 +++++++++--------- tests/qemu-iotests/iotests.py | 16 +++++++++++----- 5 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
As discussed here:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-10/msg00697.html
and here:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-10/msg01388.html
it would be good to have some more valuable iotests enabled in the
"auto" group to get better iotest coverage during "make check".
And once Max' "iotests: Add and use $SOCK_DIR" patch series has been
merged, we can indeed enable these Python-based tests, too.
There is just one small downside: Since these tests require a QEMU
that features a 'virtio-blk' device, we cannot run the iotests
with binaries like qemu-system-tricore anymore. But since the iotests
were not very useful with such binaries anyway, I think it's ok now
if we skip them there.
I've also added a patch that removes test 130 from the "auto" group
instead. Test 130 has been reported to fail intermittently, so we
should not use it in "make check" block until it is fixed.
Based-on: 20191010152457.17713-1-mreitz@redhat.com
v3:
- Test 183 fails on Patchew, so I removed it from the "auto" group
again
v2:
- Checked the iotests with NetBSD, too (now that Eduardo has
re-activated Gerd's patches for creating NetBSD VM images)
- Use 'openbsd' instead of 'openbsd6'
- Use 'grep -q' instead of 'grep' for grep'ing silently
- Added the patch to disable 130 from the "auto" group
John Snow (1):
iotests: remove 'linux' from default supported platforms
Thomas Huth (5):
iotests: Test 041 only works on certain systems
iotests: Test 183 does not work on macOS and OpenBSD
iotests: Skip "make check-block" if QEMU does not support virtio-blk
iotests: Enable more tests in the 'auto' group to improve test
coverage
iotests: Remove 130 from the "auto" group
tests/check-block.sh | 16 +++++++++++++++-
tests/qemu-iotests/041 | 3 ++-
tests/qemu-iotests/183 | 1 +
tests/qemu-iotests/group | 18 +++++++++---------
tests/qemu-iotests/iotests.py | 16 +++++++++++-----
5 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
--
2.18.1
On 22/10/2019 09.21, Thomas Huth wrote: > As discussed here: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-10/msg00697.html > > and here: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-10/msg01388.html > > it would be good to have some more valuable iotests enabled in the > "auto" group to get better iotest coverage during "make check". > > And once Max' "iotests: Add and use $SOCK_DIR" patch series has been > merged, we can indeed enable these Python-based tests, too. Oh well, some Travis jobs are now running too long and hit the 50 minutes limit: https://travis-ci.com/huth/qemu/jobs/248158477 ... so we either might need to remove some other iotests from the "auto" group again, or change the Travis jobs to include less targets... That "clang + sanitizer" job was already running 45 minutes before my change, so it was already close to the limit. So I'd suggest to change it to include less targets. Opinions? Thomas
Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes: > On 22/10/2019 09.21, Thomas Huth wrote: >> As discussed here: >> >> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-10/msg00697.html >> >> and here: >> >> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-10/msg01388.html >> >> it would be good to have some more valuable iotests enabled in the >> "auto" group to get better iotest coverage during "make check". >> >> And once Max' "iotests: Add and use $SOCK_DIR" patch series has been >> merged, we can indeed enable these Python-based tests, too. > > Oh well, some Travis jobs are now running too long and hit the 50 > minutes limit: > > https://travis-ci.com/huth/qemu/jobs/248158477 > > ... so we either might need to remove some other iotests from the "auto" > group again, or change the Travis jobs to include less targets... > > That "clang + sanitizer" job was already running 45 minutes before my > change, so it was already close to the limit. So I'd suggest to change > it to include less targets. Opinions? Which one is clang with sanitizers? I think we only build softmmu for gcc + sanitizer at the moment. > > Thomas -- Alex Bennée
On 22/10/2019 13.39, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> On 22/10/2019 09.21, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> As discussed here:
>>>
>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-10/msg00697.html
>>>
>>> and here:
>>>
>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-10/msg01388.html
>>>
>>> it would be good to have some more valuable iotests enabled in the
>>> "auto" group to get better iotest coverage during "make check".
>>>
>>> And once Max' "iotests: Add and use $SOCK_DIR" patch series has been
>>> merged, we can indeed enable these Python-based tests, too.
>>
>> Oh well, some Travis jobs are now running too long and hit the 50
>> minutes limit:
>>
>> https://travis-ci.com/huth/qemu/jobs/248158477
>>
>> ... so we either might need to remove some other iotests from the "auto"
>> group again, or change the Travis jobs to include less targets...
>>
>> That "clang + sanitizer" job was already running 45 minutes before my
>> change, so it was already close to the limit. So I'd suggest to change
>> it to include less targets. Opinions?
>
> Which one is clang with sanitizers? I think we only build softmmu for
> gcc + sanitizer at the moment.
I meant this one here:
- env:
- CONFIG="--target-list=${MAIN_SOFTMMU_TARGETS} "
compiler: clang
before_script:
- ./configure ${CONFIG} --extra-cflags="-fsanitize=undefined
-Werror" || { cat config.log && exit 1; }
Thomas
Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes:
> On 22/10/2019 13.39, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>
>> Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 22/10/2019 09.21, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>> As discussed here:
>>>>
>>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-10/msg00697.html
>>>>
>>>> and here:
>>>>
>>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-10/msg01388.html
>>>>
>>>> it would be good to have some more valuable iotests enabled in the
>>>> "auto" group to get better iotest coverage during "make check".
>>>>
>>>> And once Max' "iotests: Add and use $SOCK_DIR" patch series has been
>>>> merged, we can indeed enable these Python-based tests, too.
>>>
>>> Oh well, some Travis jobs are now running too long and hit the 50
>>> minutes limit:
>>>
>>> https://travis-ci.com/huth/qemu/jobs/248158477
>>>
>>> ... so we either might need to remove some other iotests from the "auto"
>>> group again, or change the Travis jobs to include less targets...
>>>
>>> That "clang + sanitizer" job was already running 45 minutes before my
>>> change, so it was already close to the limit. So I'd suggest to change
>>> it to include less targets. Opinions?
>>
>> Which one is clang with sanitizers? I think we only build softmmu for
>> gcc + sanitizer at the moment.
>
> I meant this one here:
>
> - env:
> - CONFIG="--target-list=${MAIN_SOFTMMU_TARGETS} "
> compiler: clang
> before_script:
> - ./configure ${CONFIG} --extra-cflags="-fsanitize=undefined
> -Werror" || { cat config.log && exit 1; }
Hmm we already only do the main SOFTMMU targets. I wonder if we could be
caching better?
>
> Thomas
--
Alex Bennée
Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes: > As discussed here: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-10/msg00697.html > > and here: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-10/msg01388.html Queued to testing/next, thanks. > > it would be good to have some more valuable iotests enabled in the > "auto" group to get better iotest coverage during "make check". > > And once Max' "iotests: Add and use $SOCK_DIR" patch series has been > merged, we can indeed enable these Python-based tests, too. > > There is just one small downside: Since these tests require a QEMU > that features a 'virtio-blk' device, we cannot run the iotests > with binaries like qemu-system-tricore anymore. But since the iotests > were not very useful with such binaries anyway, I think it's ok now > if we skip them there. > > I've also added a patch that removes test 130 from the "auto" group > instead. Test 130 has been reported to fail intermittently, so we > should not use it in "make check" block until it is fixed. > > Based-on: 20191010152457.17713-1-mreitz@redhat.com > > v3: > - Test 183 fails on Patchew, so I removed it from the "auto" group > again > > v2: > - Checked the iotests with NetBSD, too (now that Eduardo has > re-activated Gerd's patches for creating NetBSD VM images) > - Use 'openbsd' instead of 'openbsd6' > - Use 'grep -q' instead of 'grep' for grep'ing silently > - Added the patch to disable 130 from the "auto" group > > John Snow (1): > iotests: remove 'linux' from default supported platforms > > Thomas Huth (5): > iotests: Test 041 only works on certain systems > iotests: Test 183 does not work on macOS and OpenBSD > iotests: Skip "make check-block" if QEMU does not support virtio-blk > iotests: Enable more tests in the 'auto' group to improve test > coverage > iotests: Remove 130 from the "auto" group > > tests/check-block.sh | 16 +++++++++++++++- > tests/qemu-iotests/041 | 3 ++- > tests/qemu-iotests/183 | 1 + > tests/qemu-iotests/group | 18 +++++++++--------- > tests/qemu-iotests/iotests.py | 16 +++++++++++----- > 5 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) -- Alex Bennée
On 22.10.19 15:11, Alex Bennée wrote: > > Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes: > >> As discussed here: >> >> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-10/msg00697.html >> >> and here: >> >> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-10/msg01388.html > > Queued to testing/next, thanks. It should be noted that this series depends on my SOCK_DIR series (which I have in my block branch), or the newly added tests are likely to fail in the CI environment. Max >> >> it would be good to have some more valuable iotests enabled in the >> "auto" group to get better iotest coverage during "make check". >> >> And once Max' "iotests: Add and use $SOCK_DIR" patch series has been >> merged, we can indeed enable these Python-based tests, too. >> >> There is just one small downside: Since these tests require a QEMU >> that features a 'virtio-blk' device, we cannot run the iotests >> with binaries like qemu-system-tricore anymore. But since the iotests >> were not very useful with such binaries anyway, I think it's ok now >> if we skip them there. >> >> I've also added a patch that removes test 130 from the "auto" group >> instead. Test 130 has been reported to fail intermittently, so we >> should not use it in "make check" block until it is fixed. >> >> Based-on: 20191010152457.17713-1-mreitz@redhat.com >> >> v3: >> - Test 183 fails on Patchew, so I removed it from the "auto" group >> again >> >> v2: >> - Checked the iotests with NetBSD, too (now that Eduardo has >> re-activated Gerd's patches for creating NetBSD VM images) >> - Use 'openbsd' instead of 'openbsd6' >> - Use 'grep -q' instead of 'grep' for grep'ing silently >> - Added the patch to disable 130 from the "auto" group >> >> John Snow (1): >> iotests: remove 'linux' from default supported platforms >> >> Thomas Huth (5): >> iotests: Test 041 only works on certain systems >> iotests: Test 183 does not work on macOS and OpenBSD >> iotests: Skip "make check-block" if QEMU does not support virtio-blk >> iotests: Enable more tests in the 'auto' group to improve test >> coverage >> iotests: Remove 130 from the "auto" group >> >> tests/check-block.sh | 16 +++++++++++++++- >> tests/qemu-iotests/041 | 3 ++- >> tests/qemu-iotests/183 | 1 + >> tests/qemu-iotests/group | 18 +++++++++--------- >> tests/qemu-iotests/iotests.py | 16 +++++++++++----- >> 5 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > > -- > Alex Bennée >
Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com> writes: > On 22.10.19 15:11, Alex Bennée wrote: >> >> Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes: >> >>> As discussed here: >>> >>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-10/msg00697.html >>> >>> and here: >>> >>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-10/msg01388.html >> >> Queued to testing/next, thanks. > > It should be noted that this series depends on my SOCK_DIR series (which > I have in my block branch), or the newly added tests are likely to fail > in the CI environment. Ahh I misread.... <snip> >>> it would be good to have some more valuable iotests enabled in the >>> "auto" group to get better iotest coverage during "make check". >>> >>> And once Max' "iotests: Add and use $SOCK_DIR" patch series has been >>> merged, we can indeed enable these Python-based tests, too. I though these weren't enabled in this series. Do I need to drop all the patches? -- Alex Bennée
On 22/10/2019 15.48, Alex Bennée wrote: > > Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com> writes: > >> On 22.10.19 15:11, Alex Bennée wrote: >>> >>> Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes: >>> >>>> As discussed here: >>>> >>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-10/msg00697.html >>>> >>>> and here: >>>> >>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-10/msg01388.html >>> >>> Queued to testing/next, thanks. >> >> It should be noted that this series depends on my SOCK_DIR series (which >> I have in my block branch), or the newly added tests are likely to fail >> in the CI environment. > > Ahh I misread.... > <snip> > >>>> it would be good to have some more valuable iotests enabled in the >>>> "auto" group to get better iotest coverage during "make check". >>>> >>>> And once Max' "iotests: Add and use $SOCK_DIR" patch series has been >>>> merged, we can indeed enable these Python-based tests, too. > > I though these weren't enabled in this series. Do I need to drop all the > patches? I think it's better if the iotest patches go through Max' or Kevin's block tree. Thomas
Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes: > On 22/10/2019 15.48, Alex Bennée wrote: >> >> Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com> writes: >> >>> On 22.10.19 15:11, Alex Bennée wrote: >>>> >>>> Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> As discussed here: >>>>> >>>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-10/msg00697.html >>>>> >>>>> and here: >>>>> >>>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-10/msg01388.html >>>> >>>> Queued to testing/next, thanks. >>> >>> It should be noted that this series depends on my SOCK_DIR series (which >>> I have in my block branch), or the newly added tests are likely to fail >>> in the CI environment. >> >> Ahh I misread.... >> <snip> >> >>>>> it would be good to have some more valuable iotests enabled in the >>>>> "auto" group to get better iotest coverage during "make check". >>>>> >>>>> And once Max' "iotests: Add and use $SOCK_DIR" patch series has been >>>>> merged, we can indeed enable these Python-based tests, too. >> >> I though these weren't enabled in this series. Do I need to drop all the >> patches? > > I think it's better if the iotest patches go through Max' or Kevin's > block tree. OK I can drop them from my tree. > > Thomas -- Alex Bennée
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.