Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] Enable more iotests during "make check-block"

[Alex Bennée]

Thomas Huth <address@hidden> writes:

> On 22/10/2019 13.39, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>
>> Thomas Huth <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> On 22/10/2019 09.21, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>> As discussed here:
>>>>
>>>>  https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-10/msg00697.html
>>>>
>>>> and here:
>>>>
>>>>  https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-10/msg01388.html
>>>>
>>>> it would be good to have some more valuable iotests enabled in the
>>>> "auto" group to get better iotest coverage during "make check".
>>>>
>>>> And once Max' "iotests: Add and use $SOCK_DIR" patch series has been
>>>> merged, we can indeed enable these Python-based tests, too.
>>>
>>> Oh well, some Travis jobs are now running too long and hit the 50
>>> minutes limit:
>>>
>>>  https://travis-ci.com/huth/qemu/jobs/248158477
>>>
>>> ... so we either might need to remove some other iotests from the "auto"
>>> group again, or change the Travis jobs to include less targets...
>>>
>>> That "clang + sanitizer" job was already running 45 minutes before my
>>> change, so it was already close to the limit. So I'd suggest to change
>>> it to include less targets. Opinions?
>>
>> Which one is clang with sanitizers? I think we only build softmmu for
>> gcc + sanitizer at the moment.
>
> I meant this one here:
>
>     - env:
>         - CONFIG="--target-list=${MAIN_SOFTMMU_TARGETS} "
>       compiler: clang
>       before_script:
>         - ./configure ${CONFIG} --extra-cflags="-fsanitize=undefined
> -Werror" || { cat config.log && exit 1; }

Hmm we already only do the main SOFTMMU targets. I wonder if we could be
caching better?

>
>  Thomas


--
Alex Bennée