[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-block] [RFC PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: re-format output to for

From: Alex Bennée
Subject: Re: [Qemu-block] [RFC PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: re-format output to for make check-block
Date: Mon, 06 May 2019 20:02:59 +0100
User-agent: mu4e 1.3.1; emacs 26.1

Thomas Huth <address@hidden> writes:

> On 03/05/2019 18.15, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> Thomas Huth <address@hidden> writes:
>>> On 03/05/2019 16.39, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>>> This attempts to clean-up the output to better match the output of the
>>>> rest of the QEMU check system. This includes:
>>>>   - formatting as "  TEST    iotest: nnn"
>>>>   - calculating time diff at the end
>>>>   - only dumping config on failure
>>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <address@hidden>
>>>> ---
>>>>  tests/qemu-iotests/check | 71 +++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>>>>  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
>>> Thanks for tackling this! The output now looks nicer indeed if you run
>>> "make check-qtest check-block -j8". However, if you add a "V=1" at the
>>> end of the command line, the outputs look quite different again...
>>> That's why I thought that having a TAP mode for the check script could
>>> be a good idea, too. Then we could pipe the output through the
>>> tap-driver.pl script, too, so we get uniform output for all tests...?
>> That would probably be a cleaner approach. What would be even better is
>> somehow expanding the list of tests at make time so you could run your
>> tests in parallel.
> I agree that this might be the ultimate solution ... but I'm not sure
> whether the iotests are really ready for being run in parallel yet, so
> it will likely take quite some while 'till we are at that point. With
> that in mind (and thus also not sure yet whether my TAP idea is really
> the right approach), your patch is certainly a good interim solution
> which we should try to get merged, too, when my "make check" series gets
> accepted?

I'm happy to take your series through my testing/next tree if the block
developers are happy with the hack-ups I've made to the test script to
make it fit in. There are a few comments which I can roll in and I'll
get testing/next posted tomorrow for final review.

Alex Bennée

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]