On 26.04.2018 16:22, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 03:14:00PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 04:09:55PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> On 26.04.2018 15:57, Eduardo Habkost wrote: >>>> (Starting a new thread, for more visibility) >>>> >>>> (This was: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] tests/device-introspect: Test >>>> devices with all machines, not only with "none") >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 01:54:43PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>> [...] >>>>> I don't mind having make check SPEED=slow run more extensive tests. >>>>> Assuming we actually run them at least once in a while, which seems >>>>> doubtful. >>>> >>>> We probably don't do that, but we really must be running a more >>>> extensive (and slower) test set at least once before every >>>> release. >>>> >>>> Maybe some people are running SPEED=slow tests, or even more >>>> extensive test suites like avocado-vt once in a while, but we >>>> need to know who is running them, and when. >>> >>> At least I am running "make check SPEED=slow" manually from time to >>> time, especially when we enter the hard freeze period. >> >> Hmm, we could get this done by travis. It has the concept of "cron jobs" >> for scheduling builds separately from pushes. >> >> So we could keep the current travis jobs unchanged, but then add an >> use of SPEED=slow when TRAVIS_EVENT_TYPE == "cron" in the travis.yml, >> so we can get SPEED=slow run once a day. Just have to be careful which >> jobs we make slow so we don't hit the 50 minute timeout. > > I expect SPEED=slow tests to eventually take longer than 50 > minutes, but we can try this and see what happens.
I already had to move some of the slow tests to SPEED=slow mode in the past due to the travis timeouts (which are hit when the machines are very loaded), so my guess is that SPEED=slow will hardly work with travis. Thomas
