On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 05:39:40PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > 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). >
Here is what we need from common.rc for this series: _rm_test_img _cleanup_nbd _cleanup_vxhs _cleanup_rbd _cleanup_sheepdog _cleanup_protocols _cleanup_test_img They all have a common theme (cleanup), so I could move them all to a common.cleanup (naming suggestion?) file (which would need to be included by common.rc, as well). Would this be a strong enough delineation to overcome your concerns? > > 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
