Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 6/9] Convert error_report() to warn_report()

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 09:30:06AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 24/07/2017 08:30, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> writes:
> > 
> >> Kevin Wolf <address@hidden> writes:
> >>
> >>> Am 13.07.2017 um 15:27 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben:
> >>>> From: Alistair Francis <address@hidden>
> >>>>
> >>>> Convert all uses of error_report("warning:"... to use warn_report()
> >>>> instead. This helps standardise on a single method of printing warnings
> >>>> to the user.
> >>>>
> >>>> All of the warnings were changed using these two commands:
> >>>>     find ./* -type f -exec sed -i \
> >>>>       's|error_report(".*warning[,:] |warn_report("|Ig' {} +
> >>>>
> >>>> Indentation fixed up manually afterwards.
> >>>>
> >>>> The test-qdev-global-props test case was manually updated to ensure that
> >>>> this patch passes make check (as the test cases are case sensitive).
> >>>
> >>> This patch broke qemu-iotests 051 because it neglected to update the
> >>> reference output. Not sure if a change of the message was even intended,
> >>> but with a error location prefix, the order changes:
> >>>
> >>> -(qemu) QEMU_PROG: -drive if=scsi,media=cdrom: warning: bus=0,unit=0 is 
> >>> deprecated with this machine type
> >>> +(qemu) warning: qemu-system-x86_64: -drive if=scsi,media=cdrom: 
> >>> bus=0,unit=0 is deprecated with this machine type
> >>>
> >>> Personally, I would expect the error location or at least the program
> >>> name to come first even for warnings.
> >>
> >> I'll fix it.
> >>
> >> While focusing on something other than block, I forget qemu-iotests
> >> exist.  My fault, but it's a pretty common fault.  I reiterate my plea
> >> to include (a sensible subset of) it in "make check".
> > 
> > Oh, 051 isn't run by "make check-block".  It could just as well not
> > exist then.
> > 
> > What's the recommended way to run all iotests a build of QEMU can run?
> 
> I use "path-to-srcdir/tests/check-block.sh".  It takes about 20 minutes.
> 
> There are two issues with check-block:
> 
> * tests that require QEMU are skipped (rationale: you might be building
> without the x86_64-softmmu target).
> 
> * it only runs the "quick" group, but I think we should reverse the
> direction and mark slow tests specifically (that would cut about 10
> minutes out of the 20).

The notion of "slow" and "quick" in the iotests is rather dubious too.
Effectively we're saying "slow for qcow2" and "quick for qcow2".

If you run qcow (v1) pretty much everything is slow, because qcow2
speed improvements were never made to qcow1 for obvious reasons.

If using the "luks" format tests which create alot of images are
significantly slower, because there's a significant time penalty
on formatting images. 

I imagine other formats or protocol drivers have varying tradeoffs
too.

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 :|