Re: [PULL 00/13] 9p queue 2020-10-23

[Daniel P . Berrangé]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 02:52:16PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 14:31, Christian Schoenebeck
> <qemu_oss@crudebyte.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Donnerstag, 29. Oktober 2020 15:15:19 CET Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 14:06, Christian Schoenebeck
> > >
> > > <qemu_oss@crudebyte.com> wrote:
> > > > Ok, I'll use mkdtemp() instead, that avoids other potential parallel
> > > > config
> > > > colissions that I may not have considered yet.
> > > >
> > > > The original motivation against mkdtemp() was that /tmp is isually a
> > > > ramfs,
> > > > hence very limited regarding large file tests. But that's not an issue
> > > > right now.
> > >
> > > How large is "large" here ?
> 
> > E.g. ~10 GiB which might be a problem for cloud based CI platforms.
> 
> Yeah, 10GB is too big by an order of magnitude for anything in the
> standard "make check" set. It could go in an optional "I'm the 9p
> maintainer and I want to run a wider set of tests" target though.

I think as a rough rule of thumb, tests should not create files
that are larger than the size of the QEMU build dir, and if it is
creating non-trivially sized files, then they should be created in
the build dir, not /tmp.  This probably puts 1 GB as a upper bound
on size but bear in mind tests can run in parallel, so ideally biggest
file sizes should be more in the 100s of MB range


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 :|