On 09/13/12 03:41pm, Chris Evich wrote:
> On 09/13/2012 01:16 PM, Prem Karat wrote:
> >On 09/12/12 02:34pm, Chris Evich wrote:
> >>
> >>Thanks for the fix! Your reasoning sounds good to me. I have just
> >>two questions...
> >>
> >>On 09/12/2012 01:36 PM, Prem Karat wrote:
> >>>virsh freecell has libvirt=on& libvirt=off as the main variants and hence
> >>>evey test under freecell will include either on of them as the parameter.
> >>>Hence while preparing libvirt service for every test, this check can be
> >>>avoided.
> >>>
> >>> # Prepare libvirtd service
> >>> check_libvirtd = params.has_key("libvirtd")
> >>> if check_libvirtd:
> >>>
> >>>Params will always have either libvirtd as on or off as variants show
> >>>below in subtests.cfg.sample
> >>>
> >>> variants:
> >>> - libvirton:
> >>> libvirtd = "on"
> >>> - libvirtoff:
> >>> libvirtd = "off"
> >>> status_error = "yes"
> >>>
> >>>Cleaning up to avoid the unnecessary check and introducing a check to
> >>>see the status of libvirt daemon and if its not running, will start the
> >>>service on "libvirtd = on" variant.
> >>
> >>As much as I try to catch them in patches, it's conceivable that a
> >>prior virsh_* test had a problem and failed to recover libvirtd
> >>service. In this case, if virsh_freecell happens to be the
> >>following test, it may hide a bug or test problem. Assuming this is
> >>unlikely event, do you think it's worth worrying about?
> >
> >What kind of problem are you referring here? Assuming Test Failures, that
> >should
> >be captured by the individual tests.
> >
> >I wouldn't worry about that because all we are trying to do is to ensure that
> >libvirtd service is running for any virsh_commands to execute.
> >
>
> Sorry for not being clear, "The Problem" is, if we don't have your
> fix on every virsh test, when libvirtd is ever in wrong state, all
> subsequent virsh_* tests will fail.
>
> >>
> >>Second, if this patch is implemented. What do you think if I were
> >>to make it the "standard" by putting this libvirtd
> >>check/start/restart/stop stuff into a common place, like virt_env
> >>pre/post process?
> >>
> >>i.e. it seems nearly all the virsh_* tests are taking these same
> >>steps, it would be nice to have uniform behavior.
> >
> >Yes I agree with that. Preparing libvirt during pre process and recovering
> >post
> >process would be the ideal thing to have.
> >
>
>
> Okay good, let's take this approach so we don't have a large
> collection of virsh_* tests all doing different things with libvirtd
> service :S Would you like to attempt putting this on pre-process?
> No worries if not, I'll take a look at it next week once we get the
> big virt code split stuff done (Monday I believe is the day).
>
Yes, am working on to get this in pre-process & post-process step. I'll get back
to you on this.
--
-prem
_______________________________________________
Autotest-kernel mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/autotest-kernel
