On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote: > Am 08.03.2012 16:51, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi: >> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> Run the 'quick' group from qemu-iotests during 'make check'. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> tests/Makefile | 1 + >>> tests/qemu-iotests.sh | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ >> >> I think tests/qemu-iotests-quick.sh would be a clearer name since this >> is not a general-purpose qemu-iotests wrapper - it only works when >> called from QEMU's root directory and only invokes the 'quick' group. > > Ok, I'll rename it. > >>> +./check -T -nocache -raw -g quick || ret=1 >>> +./check -T -nocache -qcow2 -g quick || ret=1 >> >> Some love for qed? It adds 10s on my box but we're already up at 26s. > > I'm used to high expectations, but loving QED is a bit too much... ;-) > > Not sure what to do about all the formats. Ideally we would test all of > them (at least those with better implementations, VMDK, VHD, VDI), but > that would definitely take too long. I hope that in the not too distant > future, QED will have a similar position to qcow1, but we may consider > adding it for now. > > However, 'make check' is really the quick test that you run when you > don't change anything in the image formats. If you do, you should do a > full qemu-iotests run. So the important question is whether QED is > likely to reveal any breakage outside block/* that the qcow2 tests > wouldn't find. > > With the same reason we can probably drop the raw tests: qcow2 is the > most featureful format, so any breakage should be visible there. Most of > raw-posix.c should be part of the qcow2 tests already.
In another thread I think Anthony suggested check-block. So if we just test qcow2 here to make sure the block layer works, then we can do a full run in check-block with raw, qed, and friends. Stefan