On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 04:50:39PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 05:51:29PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 08:26:12PM +0000, Adam Litke wrote:
[snip]
> > Hmm. I was about to say I thought changing to Python was a pretty
> > good idea, but then I had some second thoughts.
> >
> > These are all sound arguments, and the script certainly was getting
> > pretty messy in shell. I wrote it in shell initially because that was
> > the simple obvious option when it was just a handful of simple tests.
> > The testsuite is a lot more complex these days.
> >
> > The one big thing that worries me about switching to Python is that it
> > introduces another build and test dependency. That's not a big issue
> > for regular desktop or server systems - Python's common enough. But
> > it is an issue for embedded boards, where hugepage support is becoming
> > increasingly common. In particular that's troublesome because
> > libhugetlbfs is de fact the testsuite for kernel hugepage support as
> > well as for the library itself. Making it harder to do a thorough
> > test of hugepages on J Random embedded board is a non-trivial
> > drawback.
>
> Are the test environments for embedded boards really so constrained that
> they cannot support python? I would have thought that an embedded machine
> with sufficient memory for hugepages + libhugetlbfs would also be also able
> to host python on a development board running the test scripts. Granted,
> the production board might be too small but at that point the testing at
> libhugetlbfs level should be done.
Well, maybe, maybe not.
I'd agree that boards which are truly so constrained that they can't
support Python would be rare at best. But its a question of
convenience. On a server or desktop system, a working Python setup is
just an apt-get or yum command away. On an board with an openwrt or
MontaVista or some other embedded distro based build, installing
Python could be much more of a pain in the arse.
Although, it just occurred to me that we currently require a number of
bashisms, so systems that use busybox for shell instead are already in
trouble.
> If they do not have python, it also means that tools such as autotest
> are out the window so their test environment is already more contrained
> than we already generally think of. Right?
Well, yes, but the testsuite doesn't need autotest or anything like it
now.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Libhugetlbfs-devel mailing list
Libhugetlbfs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libhugetlbfs-devel
