On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 1:40 AM Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 10:15:57AM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote: > > We shouldn't be adding warnings to the build like that. When building > > static binaries, I'd assume the person at least knows there's a -static > > in there somewhere. If you're just building the system binaries and > > warnings start to show up, that's not good. Since this is just a side > > script that's very infrequently used, I don't think it justifies the > > extra warning. > > Yeah this could be a valid point. > > The main issue is I believe 99.999999% of people building qemu will not use > stress.c and the initrd at all. It means we could start burning some tiny > little more cpus all over the worlds for nothing.. the added warning is a > bad extra side effect of that. > > So I wonder if it would make more sense to only build stress.c manually >
Ok, get it. > like before, until some of the stress test would be put into either 'make > check' or CI flows. Then we decide whether to fix the warning or not. > Yes, I think that adding the essential guestperf test to "make check" (like migration via a Unix socket) may make sense, at least from the perspective of guestperf's usability. > -- > Peter Xu > > -- Best regards
