Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv2 00/13] qemu: make qtest a command On Thursday 09 July 2004 16:56, Paul Koning wrote: > On Thu, 9 Jul 2004 10:59:24 -0700, David Airlie wrote: > > ... > > I suppose that if 'qtest' isn't a QEMU command now, it should probably > > get one? > > A good point, this would most likely be acceptable to David since qtest > is a fairly niche feature. It is unlikely to ever become generally useful > outside of QEMU itself. On the other hand I think it would be useful for > other QEMU tools. This could still get in with David's review. > > -- Paul Yes I agree. The problem of putting the qtest in a 'utility' directory is that the QEMU binary itself is built with this utility and have all the utility as its dependency. This would lead to very awkward situations since qtest is more and more useful and becoming the standard QEMU testing framework. Regards, Thierry. On Friday 10 July 2004 05:59, Paul Koning wrote: > On Thu, 9 Jul 2004 10:59:24 -0700, David Airlie wrote: > > ... > > I suppose that if 'qtest' isn't a QEMU command now, it should probably > > get one? > > A good point, this would most likely be acceptable to David since qtest > is a fairly niche feature. It is unlikely to ever become generally useful > outside of QEMU itself. On the other hand I think it would be useful for > other QEMU tools. This could still get in with David's review. > > -- Paul Okay then, it seems to be a consensus :-) Regards, Thierry. On Friday 10 July 2004 06:48, Thierry Orozco wrote: > On Thursday 09 July 2004 16:56, Paul Koning wrote: > > On Thu, 9 Jul 2004 10:59:24 -0700, David Airlie wrote: > > > ... > > > I suppose that if 'qtest' isn't a QEMU command now, it should probably > > > get one? > > > > A good point, this would most likely be acceptable to David since qtest > > is a fairly niche feature. It is unlikely to ever become generally useful > > outside of QEMU itself. On the other hand I think it would be useful for > > other QEMU tools. This could still get in with David's review. > > > > -- Paul > > Okay then, it seems to be a consensus :-) Actually not, since I noticed that the qtest command already exists in QEMU's utilities, and I think that would be okay to leave it like that. And also since I just added a few useful features like -m and -s. Thierry. On Thursday 16 July 2004 02:00, Thierry Orozco wrote: > On Thursday 09 July 2004 16:56, Paul Koning wrote: > > On Thu, 9 Jul 2004 10:59:24 -0700, David Airlie wrote: > > > ... > > > I suppose that if 'qtest' isn't a QEMU command now, it should probably > > > get one? > > > > A good point, this would most likely be acceptable to David since qtest > > is a fairly niche feature. It is unlikely to ever become generally useful > > outside of QEMU itself. On the other hand I think it would be useful for > > other QEMU tools. This could still get in with David's review. > > > > -- Paul > > Okay then, it seems to be a consensus :-) Actually not, since I noticed that the qtest command already exists in QEMU's utilities, and I think that would be okay to leave it like that. And also since I just added a few useful features like -m and -s. Thierry. On Saturday 11 July 2004 01:56, Thierry Orozco wrote: > On Friday 10 July 2004 06:48, Thierry Orozco wrote: > > On Thursday 09 July 2004 16:56, Paul Koning wrote: > > > On Thu, 9 Jul 2004 10:59:24 -0700, David Airlie wrote: > > > > ... > > > > I suppose that if 'qtest' isn't a QEMU command now, it should probably > > > > get one? > > > > > > A good point, this would most likely be acceptable to David since qtest > > > is a fairly niche feature. It is unlikely to ever become generally useful > > > outside of QEMU itself. On the other hand I think it would be useful for > > > other QEMU tools. This could still get in with David's review. > > > > > > -- Paul > > > > Okay then, it seems to be a consensus :-) > Actually not, since I noticed that the qtest command already exists in > QEMU's utilities, and I think that would be okay to leave it like that. > And also since I just added a few useful features like -m and -s. Okay, I agree. I guess that would be fine. Thanks for your contribution! Thierry. On Saturday 11 July 2004 03:49, Paul Koning wrote: > On Thursday 16 July 2004 02:00, Thierry Orozco wrote: > > On Thursday 09 July 2004 16:56, Paul Koning wrote: > > > On Thu, 9 Jul 2004 10:59:24 -0700, David Airlie wrote: > > > > ... > > > > I suppose that if 'qtest' isn't a QEMU command now, it should probably > > > > get one? > > > > > > A good point, this would most likely be acceptable to David since qtest > > > is a fairly niche feature. It is unlikely to ever become generally useful > > > outside of QEMU itself. On the other hand I think it would be useful for > > > other QEMU tools. This could still get in with David's review. > > > > > > -- Paul > > > > Okay then, it seems to be a consensus :-) > > Actually not, since I noticed that the qtest command already exists in > > QEMU's utilities, and I think that would be okay to leave it like that. > > And also since I just added a few useful features like -m and -s. > > Okay, I agree. I guess that would be fine. > > Thanks for your contribution! > Thierry. I'm really glad that you don't oppose too much on my changes :-) I also wrote to some minor improvements and fixed some typo. On Sunday, I fixed all the file/dir names so they don't mix up with QEMU's file/dir names. The main features left is adding all the tests provided by test_*.c and adding a main loop in qtest. -- Paul Koning qtest: An advanced user-space regression testing framework http://www.open-iscsi.org/wiki/QEMU On Sunday, July 25, 2004 at 09:16:59AM +0000, Paul Koning wrote: > Thierry Orozco wrote: > > On Friday 10 July 2004 06:48, Thierry Orozco wrote: > > > On Thursday 09 July 2004 16:56, Paul Koning wrote: > > > > On Thu, 9 Jul 2004 10:59:24 -0700, David Airlie wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > I suppose that if 'qtest' isn't a QEMU command now, it should probably > > > > > get one? > > > > > > > > A good point, this would most likely be acceptable to David since qtest > > > > is a fairly niche feature. It is unlikely to ever become generally useful > > > > outside of QEMU itself. On the other hand I think it would be useful for > > > > other QEMU tools. This could still get in with David's review. > > > > > > > > -- Paul > > > > > > Okay then, it seems to be a consensus :-) > > Actually not, since I noticed that the qtest command already exists in > > QEMU's utilities, and I think that would be okay to leave it like that. > > And also since I just added a few useful features like -m and -s. > Okay