On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 5:40 PM Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 at 12:50, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > I think the main difference is not even in how it works, it's > > in what it does. Which is check that ACPI tables are sane. > > Who cares about that? Well developers do when they change the > > tables. Users really don't because for users we have the expected > > tables in tree and we check against these. > > It wants to build and run a big guest binary blob -- that to me is > the main difference. Users don't much care about any of our tests,
perhaps but we do enforce patch submitters to make sure make check passes before submitting patches. make check-avocado is not run as part of make check, requires considerable disk space to download all guest images and hence generally not run by patch submitters. Making bits parts of avocado tests almost defeats the purpose of having this test at all. > whether they're under 'make check' or 'make check-avocado' or the > iotests framework. The reason to pick one framework or another > is mostly I think whether the properties of the test are such > that one framework works better. Avocado is (for better or worse) > the one we have for dealing with "actually run a guest machine > with a big lump of guest code in it". > > -- PMM
