On 03/09/2012 12:48 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/09/2012 09:34 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 09/03/2012 16:24, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
At the very least dump the inquiry pages, mode pages, etc. and see
that
they make sense and correspond to the device properties.
Is this not something
On 03/09/2012 09:34 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 09/03/2012 16:24, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
At the very least dump the inquiry pages, mode pages, etc. and see that
they make sense and correspond to the device properties.
Is this not something that's reasonably easy to do in qtest?
Yes (at
Il 09/03/2012 16:24, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
>> At the very least dump the inquiry pages, mode pages, etc. and see that
>> they make sense and correspond to the device properties.
>
> Is this not something that's reasonably easy to do in qtest?
Yes (at least with virtio-scsi the libos bits ar
On 03/09/2012 09:17 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 09/03/2012 16:02, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
But again that's not okay for all testcases. If I want to do SCSI
tests, I cannot write them in shell scripts because qemu-jeos does not
have sg3_utils.
What SCSI tests are you trying to write?
At
Il 09/03/2012 16:02, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
>>
>> But again that's not okay for all testcases. If I want to do SCSI
>> tests, I cannot write them in shell scripts because qemu-jeos does not
>> have sg3_utils.
>
> What SCSI tests are you trying to write?
At the very least dump the inquiry pa
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Ademar Reis wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 02:54:23PM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Ademar Reis wrote:
>> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:41:05AM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Ademar Reis wro
On 03/09/2012 09:00 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 09/03/2012 15:43, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
Linux is the only part that matters here. The userspace in qemu-jeos
is just there to give a small environment for Linux to function
properly in.
But again that's not okay for all testcases. If I wa
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 02:54:23PM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Ademar Reis wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:41:05AM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Ademar Reis wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 05:21:44PM -0600, Anth
Il 09/03/2012 15:43, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
> Linux is the only part that matters here. The userspace in qemu-jeos
> is just there to give a small environment for Linux to function
> properly in.
But again that's not okay for all testcases. If I want to do SCSI
tests, I cannot write them in
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Ademar Reis wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:41:05AM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Ademar Reis wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 05:21:44PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> >> On 03/08/2012 04:24 PM, Ademar Reis wrote:
>> >>
On 03/09/2012 08:43 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 09/03/2012 14:56, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
On 03/09/2012 07:07 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 08/03/2012 22:24, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
The qemu-test tests are smaller than the corresponding autotest
tests.
They also do much less.
It's tru
On 03/09/2012 08:30 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 09/03/2012 15:01, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
How do you handle out-of-tree patches with submodules (as is the case
when working on new code)?
It's very easy to update .gitmodules to point to a different tree on
your local system and then update
Il 09/03/2012 14:56, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
> On 03/09/2012 07:07 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 08/03/2012 22:24, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
>>> The qemu-test tests are smaller than the corresponding autotest
>>> tests.
>>
>> They also do much less.
>>
>> It's true that a combination of q
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 08:13:45AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/09/2012 06:48 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
>
> Look at how this discussion started. We've been discussing testing
> on qemu-devel at excruciating length and detail and have finally
> come to something of a consensus.
On 03/09/2012 11:13 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
It is indeed a bit nerve wrecking to hear that all you can do with the
stuff you
have been working on the last 3 years can be done better with a dozen
of shell
script functions. It's similar to say that we just like to throw lines
at a text
editor ju
Il 09/03/2012 15:01, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
>> How do you handle out-of-tree patches with submodules (as is the case
>> when working on new code)?
>
> It's very easy to update .gitmodules to point to a different tree on
> your local system and then update the ref to a local commit.
>
> So fr
On 03/09/2012 06:48 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
On 03/09/2012 09:13 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/08/2012 05:07 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
Here is the qemu-test version
http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu-test.git;a=blob;f=tests/virtio-serial.sh;h=e95ae6e0b63758262919702d51a9c83beb
On 03/09/2012 07:36 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 08/03/2012 22:03, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
Herein lies the problem. You forgot and it's your proposal :-)
Ok, fair enough :) But still, qemu-jeos points out to external
repositories,
just as much as buildroot. It seems to me that the whole p
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:41:05AM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Ademar Reis wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 05:21:44PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >> On 03/08/2012 04:24 PM, Ademar Reis wrote:
> >> >On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 03:24:15PM -0600, Anthony Liguor
On 03/09/2012 07:07 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 08/03/2012 22:24, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
The qemu-test tests are smaller than the corresponding autotest tests.
They also do much less.
It's true that a combination of qemu-test + qtests could do 99% of the
job more simply than autotest. B
Il 08/03/2012 22:03, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
>>>
>>>
>>> Herein lies the problem. You forgot and it's your proposal :-)
>>
>> Ok, fair enough :) But still, qemu-jeos points out to external
>> repositories,
>> just as much as buildroot. It seems to me that the whole point about FSF
>> requiring
Il 09/03/2012 01:04, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
>>
>> * Sends data between host and guest back and forth, validates the data
>> being
>> sent, for both small and large amounts of data, both random or
>> sequential.
>> * Tests write/send in blocking, polling, selecting mode, with port
>> mode sync/
Il 08/03/2012 22:24, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
> The qemu-test tests are smaller than the corresponding autotest tests.
They also do much less.
It's true that a combination of qemu-test + qtests could do 99% of the
job more simply than autotest. But the last 1% (including migration)
would requ
Il 08/03/2012 18:59, Ademar Reis ha scritto:
> unit-test:
> void main()
> {
> my_function();
> }
>
> integration test (or validation test):
> void main()
> {
> exec("my-application");
> }
>
> But that's all semantics, not important for this discussion IMO.
On 03/09/2012 09:13 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/08/2012 05:07 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
Here is the qemu-test version
http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu-test.git;a=blob;f=tests/virtio-serial.sh;h=e95ae6e0b63758262919702d51a9c83bebe2fb08;hb=master
So virtio-serial is an exception in a
On 03/09/2012 09:42 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/09/2012 06:40 AM, Cleber Rosa wrote:
On 03/09/2012 09:04 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/09/2012 05:20 AM, Cleber Rosa wrote:
You're comparing developer-level tests with the existent QA-level
tests (much more complex).
Let's be specific t
On 03/09/2012 06:40 AM, Cleber Rosa wrote:
On 03/09/2012 09:04 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/09/2012 05:20 AM, Cleber Rosa wrote:
You're comparing developer-level tests with the existent QA-level
tests (much more complex).
Let's be specific then. Look at device-add.sh in qemu-test. It's 71
On 03/09/2012 09:04 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/09/2012 05:20 AM, Cleber Rosa wrote:
You're comparing developer-level tests with the existent QA-level
tests (much more complex).
Let's be specific then. Look at device-add.sh in qemu-test. It's 71LOC.
pci_hotplug.py in autotest is 204LOC.
On 03/09/2012 06:13 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 09.03.2012 12:59, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
On 03/09/2012 05:14 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 09.03.2012 00:51, schrieb Ademar Reis:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 05:21:44PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Plus it's not unconditional: the test runner will report
On 03/08/2012 05:07 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
On 03/08/2012 06:24 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Cons:
- Lot of code will be duplicated to cover the main code paths:
writting tests will require writting/supporting considerable
ammount of code (that already exists in autotest).
Again, ex
Am 09.03.2012 12:59, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On 03/09/2012 05:14 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 09.03.2012 00:51, schrieb Ademar Reis:
>>> On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 05:21:44PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Plus it's not unconditional: the test runner will report tests
> SKIPPED if a depende
On 03/09/2012 05:20 AM, Cleber Rosa wrote:
You're comparing developer-level tests with the existent QA-level
tests (much more complex).
Let's be specific then. Look at device-add.sh in qemu-test. It's 71LOC.
pci_hotplug.py in autotest is 204LOC.
pci_hotplug.py does much more than device-add.s
On 03/09/2012 05:14 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 09.03.2012 00:51, schrieb Ademar Reis:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 05:21:44PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Plus it's not unconditional: the test runner will report tests
SKIPPED if a dependency is not present.
But then the tests aren't run so if most
On 03/08/2012 08:21 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/08/2012 04:24 PM, Ademar Reis wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 03:24:15PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/08/2012 03:02 PM, Ademar Reis wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 01:16:58PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/08/2012 11:59 AM, Ademar
Am 09.03.2012 00:51, schrieb Ademar Reis:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 05:21:44PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> Plus it's not unconditional: the test runner will report tests
>>> SKIPPED if a dependency is not present.
>>
>> But then the tests aren't run so if most developers didn't have it
>> ins
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Ademar Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 05:21:44PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 03/08/2012 04:24 PM, Ademar Reis wrote:
>> >On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 03:24:15PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> >>On 03/08/2012 03:02 PM, Ademar Reis wrote:
>> >>>On Thu, Ma
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 12:59:16AM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 08.03.2012 16:00, schrieb Ademar Reis:
> > Fully agree, please check my previous email with the plans for
> > the new architecture of autotest.
> [...]
> > Fully agree, please check our previous e-mails with the plans for
On 03/08/2012 05:07 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
On 03/08/2012 06:24 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Cons:
- Lot of code will be duplicated to cover the main code paths:
writting tests will require writting/supporting considerable
ammount of code (that already exists in autotest).
Again, ex
Hi,
Am 08.03.2012 16:00, schrieb Ademar Reis:
> Fully agree, please check my previous email with the plans for
> the new architecture of autotest.
[...]
> Fully agree, please check our previous e-mails with the plans for
> the new architecture.
FYI your mails are arriving hours late on qemu-devel
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 08:07:27PM -0300, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
> On 03/08/2012 06:24 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>
> >>Cons:
> >>- Lot of code will be duplicated to cover the main code paths:
> >>writting tests will require writting/supporting considerable
> >>ammount of code (that alr
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 05:21:44PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/08/2012 04:24 PM, Ademar Reis wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 03:24:15PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On 03/08/2012 03:02 PM, Ademar Reis wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 01:16:58PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 10:36:42AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/08/2012 10:34 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >Am 08.03.2012 17:10, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> >>>And, of course:
> >>>[qemu]$ test-runner --remote=autotest.qemu.org tests.d/block
> >>
> >>I don't understand what this would do.
> >
>
On 03/08/2012 04:24 PM, Ademar Reis wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 03:24:15PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/08/2012 03:02 PM, Ademar Reis wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 01:16:58PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/08/2012 11:59 AM, Ademar Reis wrote:
I expect QEMU to grow tests
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 09:17:42AM -0300, Ademar Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 11:54:31AM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues
> > > wrote:
> > >> One of our main goals is
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 11:03:54AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/08/2012 10:05 AM, Ademar Reis wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 09:14:02AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On 03/08/2012 09:07 AM, Ademar Reis wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 08:56:23AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 09:14:02AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/08/2012 09:07 AM, Ademar Reis wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 08:56:23AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On 03/08/2012 08:49 AM, Ademar Reis wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 07:36:11AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>
On 03/08/2012 06:24 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Cons:
- Lot of code will be duplicated to cover the main code paths:
writting tests will require writting/supporting considerable
ammount of code (that already exists in autotest).
Again, existence proof that this isn't true.
Case in point, the
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 08:56:23AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/08/2012 08:49 AM, Ademar Reis wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 07:36:11AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On 03/07/2012 10:00 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
> >>>Virt/qemu tests: Minimal guest images
> >>>-
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 11:54:31AM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues
> > wrote:
> >> One of our main goals is to provide useful tools for the qemu community,
> >> since we have a go
On 03/08/2012 08:54 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues
wrote:
One of our main goals is to provide useful tools for the qemu community,
since we have a good number of tests and libraries w
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 07:36:11AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/07/2012 10:00 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
> >Hi guys. For a while we have been discussing ways to make the virtualization
> >tests written on top of autotest useful for development level testing.
> >
> >One of our main
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 08:48:33AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/08/2012 08:01 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
> >On 03/08/2012 10:36 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >
> >>>Virt/qemu tests: Minimal guest images
> >>>-
> >>>
> >>>In order to make developm
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 04:46:09PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 08.03.2012 15:56, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> >> I particularly agreed with basically everything you said on that
> >> discussion regarding test simplification (I had just joined the
> >> team back then). To me, autotest has been focus
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 03:24:15PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/08/2012 03:02 PM, Ademar Reis wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 01:16:58PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On 03/08/2012 11:59 AM, Ademar Reis wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> I expect QEMU to grow tests for anything that invol
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 01:16:58PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/08/2012 11:59 AM, Ademar Reis wrote:
>
> >>I expect QEMU to grow tests for anything that involves launching
> >>QEMU directly. Where I would not see QEMU growing tests for is
> >>things like launching QEMU through libvirt
On 03/08/2012 03:02 PM, Ademar Reis wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 01:16:58PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/08/2012 11:59 AM, Ademar Reis wrote:
I expect QEMU to grow tests for anything that involves launching
QEMU directly. Where I would not see QEMU growing tests for is
things li
On 03/08/2012 02:17 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
On 03/08/2012 04:43 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/08/2012 01:34 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
On 03/08/2012 03:57 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/08/2012 09:19 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
Before I forget, I'd like to as
Am 08.03.2012 21:17, schrieb Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues:
> [...] qemu-jeos points out to external
> repositories, just as much as buildroot. It seems to me that the whole
> point about FSF requiring the source to be under your control is no
> longer valid here.
As long as no binary is distributed, t
On 03/08/2012 04:43 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/08/2012 01:34 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
On 03/08/2012 03:57 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/08/2012 09:19 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
Before I forget, I'd like to ask you about this:
On 03/08/2012 10:36 AM, Anthony Liguor
On 03/08/2012 01:34 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
On 03/08/2012 03:57 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/08/2012 09:19 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
Before I forget, I'd like to ask you about this:
On 03/08/2012 10:36 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I'm really not a fan of buildroot. Not
On 03/08/2012 03:57 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/08/2012 09:19 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
Before I forget, I'd like to ask you about this:
On 03/08/2012 10:36 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I'm really not a fan of buildroot. Note that in order to ship binaries,
full source needs to be
On 03/08/2012 11:59 AM, Ademar Reis wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 11:03:54AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/08/2012 10:05 AM, Ademar Reis wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 09:14:02AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/08/2012 09:07 AM, Ademar Reis wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 08:56:23AM
On 03/08/2012 09:19 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
Before I forget, I'd like to ask you about this:
On 03/08/2012 10:36 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I'm really not a fan of buildroot. Note that in order to ship binaries,
full source needs to be provided in order to comply with the GPL. The
F
On 03/08/2012 02:59 PM, Ademar Reis wrote:
Agree. For QEMU developers, libvirt should not be on the way, the
interaction should be minimal or non-existent.
That's an area which will require some work in libautotest,
because due to previous QE requirements, it now invokes libvirt
methods instead
On 03/08/2012 02:59 PM, Ademar Reis wrote:
Agree. For QEMU developers, libvirt should not be on the way, the
interaction should be minimal or non-existent.
That's an area which will require some work in libautotest,
because due to previous QE requirements, it now invokes libvirt
methods instead
On 03/08/2012 10:05 AM, Ademar Reis wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 09:14:02AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/08/2012 09:07 AM, Ademar Reis wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 08:56:23AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/08/2012 08:49 AM, Ademar Reis wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 07:36:11AM
Am 08.03.2012 17:36, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On 03/08/2012 10:34 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 08.03.2012 17:10, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
And, of course:
[qemu]$ test-runner --remote=autotest.qemu.org tests.d/block
>>>
>>> I don't understand what this would do.
>>
>> From the previous d
On 03/08/2012 10:34 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 08.03.2012 17:10, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
And, of course:
[qemu]$ test-runner --remote=autotest.qemu.org tests.d/block
I don't understand what this would do.
From the previous discussions on this topic, I suppose it would task the
autotest insta
Am 08.03.2012 17:10, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>> And, of course:
>> [qemu]$ test-runner --remote=autotest.qemu.org tests.d/block
>
> I don't understand what this would do.
>From the previous discussions on this topic, I suppose it would task the
autotest instance at autotest.qemu.org to run the b
On 03/08/2012 09:57 AM, Ademar Reis wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 04:46:09PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 08.03.2012 15:56, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
I particularly agreed with basically everything you said on that
discussion regarding test simplification (I had just joined the
team back then).
On 03/08/2012 09:46 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 08.03.2012 15:56, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
I particularly agreed with basically everything you said on that
discussion regarding test simplification (I had just joined the
team back then). To me, autotest has been focusing on QE-level,
leaving the dev
Am 08.03.2012 15:56, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>> I particularly agreed with basically everything you said on that
>> discussion regarding test simplification (I had just joined the
>> team back then). To me, autotest has been focusing on QE-level,
>> leaving the developer-level test requirements ou
Before I forget, I'd like to ask you about this:
On 03/08/2012 10:36 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I'm really not a fan of buildroot. Note that in order to ship binaries,
full source needs to be provided in order to comply with the GPL. The
FSF at least states that referring to another website for
On 03/08/2012 09:07 AM, Ademar Reis wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 08:56:23AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/08/2012 08:49 AM, Ademar Reis wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 07:36:11AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/07/2012 10:00 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
Virt/qemu tests: Mini
On 03/08/2012 08:49 AM, Ademar Reis wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 07:36:11AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/07/2012 10:00 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
Virt/qemu tests: Minimal guest images
-
In order to make development level test possible, we n
On 03/08/2012 08:01 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
On 03/08/2012 10:36 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Virt/qemu tests: Minimal guest images
-
In order to make development level test possible, we need the tests to
run fast.
In order to do that, a set of mini
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 01:00:27AM -0300, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
[snip]
>
> https://github.com/autotest/buildroot-autotest
Thanks, it was relatively easy to add qxl to this.
[snip]
On 03/08/2012 10:36 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Virt/qemu tests: Minimal guest images
-
In order to make development level test possible, we need the tests to
run fast.
In order to do that, a set of minimal guest images is being developed
and we
have a version
On 03/07/2012 10:00 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
Hi guys. For a while we have been discussing ways to make the virtualization
tests written on top of autotest useful for development level testing.
One of our main goals is to provide useful tools for the qemu community, since
we have a goo
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Cleber Rosa wrote:
> On 03/08/2012 08:54 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues
>>> wrote:
One of our main goals is to provide useful t
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues
> wrote:
>> One of our main goals is to provide useful tools for the qemu community,
>> since we have a good number of tests and libraries written to perform
>> integration/QA testi
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues
wrote:
> One of our main goals is to provide useful tools for the qemu community,
> since we have a good number of tests and libraries written to perform
> integration/QA testing for that tool, being successfuly used by a number of
> QA tea
Hi guys. For a while we have been discussing ways to make the
virtualization tests written on top of autotest useful for development
level testing.
One of our main goals is to provide useful tools for the qemu community,
since we have a good number of tests and libraries written to perform
in
83 matches
Mail list logo
