On 28/06/2022 14.36, Ani Sinha wrote:
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.
You can define sane subsets of the avocado tests by using tags. For example,
as I'm one of the s390x maintainers, I'm also only running the tests that
are tagged with tags=arch:s390x there. You could simply introduce an "acpi"
tag for your tests, too.
Thomas
