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). > 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
