Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> writes:
> On 03/05/2019 18.15, Alex Bennée wrote: >> >> Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> writes: >> >>> On 03/05/2019 16.39, Alex Bennée wrote: >>>> This attempts to clean-up the output to better match the output of the >>>> rest of the QEMU check system. This includes: >>>> >>>> - formatting as " TEST iotest: nnn" >>>> - calculating time diff at the end >>>> - only dumping config on failure >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> >>>> --- >>>> tests/qemu-iotests/check | 71 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------- >>>> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) >>> >>> Thanks for tackling this! The output now looks nicer indeed if you run >>> "make check-qtest check-block -j8". However, if you add a "V=1" at the >>> end of the command line, the outputs look quite different again... >>> >>> That's why I thought that having a TAP mode for the check script could >>> be a good idea, too. Then we could pipe the output through the >>> tap-driver.pl script, too, so we get uniform output for all tests...? >> >> That would probably be a cleaner approach. What would be even better is >> somehow expanding the list of tests at make time so you could run your >> tests in parallel. > > I agree that this might be the ultimate solution ... but I'm not sure > whether the iotests are really ready for being run in parallel yet, so > it will likely take quite some while 'till we are at that point. With > that in mind (and thus also not sure yet whether my TAP idea is really > the right approach), your patch is certainly a good interim solution > which we should try to get merged, too, when my "make check" series gets > accepted? I'm happy to take your series through my testing/next tree if the block developers are happy with the hack-ups I've made to the test script to make it fit in. There are a few comments which I can roll in and I'll get testing/next posted tomorrow for final review. -- Alex Bennée
