[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH 1/3] tests/acceptance: Move the pseries test to a separate fi

From: Willian Rampazzo
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] tests/acceptance: Move the pseries test to a separate file
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 16:57:08 -0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0

On 2/4/21 5:52 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
Hi Thomas,

On 1/13/21 6:30 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 12/01/2021 19.50, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta wrote:

On 1/12/21 1:40 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
Let's gather the POWER-related tests in a separate file.

Did you consider having others ppc/ppc64 boot tests together too?

Some candidates:


The e500, g3beige and mac99 tests are depending on the
do_test_advcal_2018() function in that file, so I think they should
rather stay there.


That's a good point, I did not notice that file when writing my patches.
Philippe, since you've created this ppc_prep_40p.py file, what do you
think, should it be merged with the other ppc tests, or shall we rather
keep this separate?

The choice was deliberate: the PReP machine has a different set of
maintainers. If possible when we have a particular section in
MAINTAINERS I'd like to use it as separation, to let the maintainers
track changes in tests.

In this example, Hervé is interested to look for PReP related files,
but doesn't have bandwidth to look at all PPC patches.

If this doesn't scale, I suggested (was it on the list or directly
to Willian?)

I remember we had this conversation some time ago, so, I'm sure you suggested to me, not sure if you mentioned that to the list.

to add a Python script to map Avocado test tags to
MAINTAINERS entry, so 1/ maintainers could run all tests linked to
their subsystem by naming the subsystem, and 2/ when a test fails
we know which maintainer to contact.

And I agree that is an interesting idea.



reply via email to

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