Re: [Autotest] [KVM-AUTOTEST PATCH] Adding iperf test

2009-07-02 Thread Avi Kivity
On 07/01/2009 08:16 PM, Martin Bligh wrote: Is KVM x86_64 only? It's x86-64, i386, ia64, s390, and powerpc 44x/e500 only. OK, then it's difficult to see using binaries? Can we not compile these on the system at use time (see the client/deps directory for other stuff we do this f

Re: [Autotest] [KVM-AUTOTEST PATCH] Adding iperf test

2009-07-01 Thread Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 10:16 -0700, Martin Bligh wrote: > LMR: me too, hate putting binaries in source tree, but the alternative > option is to provide separate *.tar.bz2 for all the binary utils, and > I don't sure which way is better. > > >>> > >>> Yes, I don't have a clear ide

Re: [Autotest] [KVM-AUTOTEST PATCH] Adding iperf test

2009-07-01 Thread Martin Bligh
LMR: me too, hate putting binaries in source tree, but the alternative option is to provide separate *.tar.bz2 for all the binary utils, and I don't sure which way is better. >>> >>> Yes, I don't have a clear idea as well. It's currently under >>> discussion... >>> >> >> Is KVM

Re: [Autotest] [KVM-AUTOTEST PATCH] Adding iperf test

2009-07-01 Thread Avi Kivity
On 07/01/2009 07:18 PM, Martin Bligh wrote: On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote: On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 14:43 +0300, Alexey Eremenko wrote: LMR: me too, hate putting binaries in source tree, but the alternative option is to provide separate *.tar.bz2 for al

Re: [Autotest] [KVM-AUTOTEST PATCH] Adding iperf test

2009-07-01 Thread Martin Bligh
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote: > On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 14:43 +0300, Alexey Eremenko wrote: >> LMR: me too, hate putting binaries in source tree, but the alternative >> option is to provide separate *.tar.bz2 for all the binary utils, and >> I don't sure which way is