On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 07:28:50AM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote: > On Mon, 07/17 12:39, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > > > Q3: What other tests do maintainers want? Different hosts? Different > > > configure > > > combinations? > > > > Would running qemu-iotests (at least the 'quick' group) be possible or > > would that take too many resources? > > As long as it can be done in several minutes on the test machine, we should be > good. > > > > > Only today I noticed again that two recently merged pull requests broke > > qemu-iotests cases, so I must assume that apart from some block > > maintainers, nobody runs it regularly. > > > > This has been on my list for a long time, the difficulty has been the frequent > breakage - I need to enable it when all tests pass, maybe 2.10 freeze is a > good > time.
IME the I/O tests runs for raw & qcow2 formats are pretty stable in general - the current breakage is the first I've noticed in a while. So I'd certainly encourage enabling those two formats immediately, once the current regresison is fix. I also had patches merged recently that should fix it for 'qcow' and 'luks' formats too, so it'd be good to get those enabled for actively testing too. The pain point I've seen come with a few tests that are sensitive to load due to hidden race conditions. Tracking those down & fixing them is likely only practical once we are actively running them on every patch, since it needs a high volume of runs to expose the problems. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
