qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 03/10] qemu-iotests: automatically clean up b


From: Jeff Cody
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 03/10] qemu-iotests: automatically clean up bash protocol servers
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:50:38 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 05:39:40PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 18/10/2017 17:34, Jeff Cody wrote:
> >> Well, I have no idea (hence the "not very constructive" part).  I'm only
> >> "nacking" the sourcing of common.rc in the check script.
> >>
> >> The series improves the harness, but it also sets a very different
> >> separation between the tests and the harness (especially WRT the tests
> >> cleaning up after themselves).  The level of separation would at least
> >> be clearer if check didn't include common.rc.
> >>
> > I can get rid of the common.rc includes prior to running the tests, but this
> > series really requires including common.rc in the spot you mentioned, for
> > automatically cleaning up protocol and QEMU processes.
> 
> Understood, but does it have to be common.rc?  Can it be a different
> file?  That at least would still make it clear what check is doing (for
> example it is not launching qemu, which is part of common.rc).
> 

Here is what we need from common.rc for this series:

_rm_test_img
_cleanup_nbd
_cleanup_vxhs
_cleanup_rbd
_cleanup_sheepdog
_cleanup_protocols
_cleanup_test_img


They all have a common theme (cleanup), so I could move them all to a
common.cleanup (naming suggestion?) file (which would need to be included by
common.rc, as well).

Would this be a strong enough delineation to overcome your concerns?


> > That auto-cleanup is arguably a big improvement, as it has been relatively
> > common to run across tests that leave processes running in the background.
> > 
> > I agree that it sets up different expectations, but that is at least partly
> > intentional.  I don't really want to have to rely on individually written
> > tests to clean up properly. That is ~200 chances (and growing) for a
> > mistake; instead, this series moves that responsibility into a single place
> > to maintain.
> 
> Understood, that's also why I'm all but nacking the entire series!
> 
> Paolo



reply via email to

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