On 20.08.19 21:19, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 8/20/19 8:48 PM, Max Reitz wrote: >> On 20.08.19 18:01, Thomas Huth wrote: > [...] >>> Well, we disable blkverify in our downstream RHEL version of QEMU - so >>> it would be great if the iotests could at least adapt to that missing >>> driver. >> >> I would like to say that RHEL is not a gold standard > > Well, let's put it this way: The less changes we have to carry along > downstream (and thus review each time we rebase the downstream tree), > the more time we have to work on upstream.
As I said, I’m guilty myself. >> It feels a bit weird to me to say “blkverify is not essential, because >> RHEL disables it, but null-co is” – even though there is no reason why >> anyone would need null-co except for testing either. > > Ok, fine for me, too, if we also declare "null-co" as optional for the > iotests - let's make sure that the tests in the "auto" group also work > without them. Well, should we or not? You said there are other tests (outside of the iotests) that break without null-co. If so, I don’t think there’s any point in making it optional here. >>>> Of course, that no longer works as an argument now that we >>>> unconditionally run some iotests in make check. >>>> >>>> But still, the question is how strict you want to be. If blkdebug >>>> cannot be assumed to be present, what about null-co? What about raw? >>> >>> I tried to disable everything beside qcow2 - but that causes so many >>> things to fail that it hardly makes sense to try to get that working. >> >> Hm, really? I just whitelisted qcow2 and file and running the auto >> group worked rather well (except for the failing tests you address here, >> and the two others I mentioned). > > IIRC I tried to run all qcow2 tests when I disabled null-co and saw lots > of failures ... but anyway, let's just focus on the "auto" tests right > now, that should be doable. OK, I didn’t bother running all. :-) Max
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
