Thomas Huth writes:
> On 30.08.2017 13:52, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Thomas Huth writes:
> [...]
>>> This also fails on a big endian ppc64 host machine:
>>>
>>> $ uname -m
>>> ppc64
>>> $ V=1 QTEST_QEMU_BINARY=x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64
>>> tests/ivshmem-test -m slow
>>> /x86_64/ivshme
On 30.08.2017 13:52, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Thomas Huth writes:
[...]
>> This also fails on a big endian ppc64 host machine:
>>
>> $ uname -m
>> ppc64
>> $ V=1 QTEST_QEMU_BINARY=x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64 tests/ivshmem-test
>> -m slow
>> /x86_64/ivshmem/single: OK
>> /x86_64/ivshmem/ho
Thomas Huth writes:
> On 30.08.2017 10:59, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> [...]
On s390x:
TEST: tests/ivshmem-test... (pid=63617)
/x86_64/ivshmem/single: OK
/x86_64/ivshmem/hotplug: OK
On 30.08.2017 10:59, Cornelia Huck wrote:
[...]
>>> On s390x:
>>> TEST: tests/ivshmem-test... (pid=63617)
>>> /x86_64/ivshmem/single: OK
>>> /x86_64/ivshmem/hotplug: OK
>>> /x86_64/ivshmem/memdev:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:27:18 +0200
Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 23.08.2017 14:20, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > So I tried this on master just for fun, and 'make V=1 SPEED=slow
> > check-qtest-x86_64' promptly failed for some ivshmem test.
> >
> > On x86_86:
> > TEST: tests/ivshmem-test... (pid=3672)
> >
On 29.08.2017 18:34, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 23.08.2017 14:20, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:35:43 +0200
>> Thomas Huth wrote:
>>
>>> True. And I just learned that you can also already set the SPEED
>>> variable to either "quick" or "slow" and that we're already using
>>> g_test_q
On 23.08.2017 14:20, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:35:43 +0200
> Thomas Huth wrote:
>
>> True. And I just learned that you can also already set the SPEED
>> variable to either "quick" or "slow" and that we're already using
>> g_test_quick() and g_test_slow() in a couple of places
On 08/23/2017 08:13 AM, Lukáš Doktor wrote:
> Dne 23.8.2017 v 14:01 Thomas Huth napsal(a):
>> On 23.08.2017 13:51, Lukáš Doktor wrote:
>>> Dne 23.8.2017 v 10:35 Thomas Huth napsal(a):
On 23.08.2017 10:01, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 23/08/2017 09:49, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> While we're a
On 23.08.2017 14:20, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:35:43 +0200
> Thomas Huth wrote:
>
>> True. And I just learned that you can also already set the SPEED
>> variable to either "quick" or "slow" and that we're already using
>> g_test_quick() and g_test_slow() in a couple of places
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:33:55AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 23/08/2017 10:35, Thomas Huth wrote:
> >> If you have a many-core machine, of course, there's no simpler solution
> >> than throwing more CPUs at it. :)
> > Is it safe nowadays to run "make check -j4" for example? Last time I
> > t
Dne 23.8.2017 v 14:35 Thomas Huth napsal(a):
> On 23.08.2017 13:51, Lukáš Doktor wrote:
> [...]
>> and all ERROR lines:
>>
>> ERROR:tests/prom-env-test.c:42:check_guest_memory: assertion failed
>> (signature == MAGIC): (0x == 0xcafec0de)
>
> This test uses a timeout of 120 s, see chec
On 23.08.2017 13:51, Lukáš Doktor wrote:
[...]
> and all ERROR lines:
>
> ERROR:tests/prom-env-test.c:42:check_guest_memory: assertion failed
> (signature == MAGIC): (0x == 0xcafec0de)
This test uses a timeout of 120 s, see check_guest_memory() in
tests/prom-env-test.c ... that's a l
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:35:43 +0200
Thomas Huth wrote:
> True. And I just learned that you can also already set the SPEED
> variable to either "quick" or "slow" and that we're already using
> g_test_quick() and g_test_slow() in a couple of places to check this. So
> the framework for running quick
Dne 23.8.2017 v 14:01 Thomas Huth napsal(a):
> On 23.08.2017 13:51, Lukáš Doktor wrote:
>> Dne 23.8.2017 v 10:35 Thomas Huth napsal(a):
>>> On 23.08.2017 10:01, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 23/08/2017 09:49, Thomas Huth wrote:
> While we're at it: I'd like to have a "make check-fast", too. Some
On 23.08.2017 13:51, Lukáš Doktor wrote:
> Dne 23.8.2017 v 10:35 Thomas Huth napsal(a):
>> On 23.08.2017 10:01, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 23/08/2017 09:49, Thomas Huth wrote:
While we're at it: I'd like to have a "make check-fast", too. Sometimes
the normal "make check" is already too s
Dne 23.8.2017 v 10:35 Thomas Huth napsal(a):
> On 23.08.2017 10:01, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 23/08/2017 09:49, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> While we're at it: I'd like to have a "make check-fast", too. Sometimes
>>> the normal "make check" is already too slow, e.g. while developing new
>>> patches, I s
On 23/08/2017 10:35, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> If you have a many-core machine, of course, there's no simpler solution
>> than throwing more CPUs at it. :)
> Is it safe nowadays to run "make check -j4" for example? Last time I
> tried (maybe 1 or 2 years ago), there were still issues since some tests
>
On Wed, 08/23 16:52, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Wed, 08/23 10:35, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > Is it safe nowadays to run "make check -j4" for example? Last time I
> > tried (maybe 1 or 2 years ago), there were still issues since some tests
> > were using hard-coded temporary file names, so the parallel tests
On Wed, 08/23 10:35, Thomas Huth wrote:
> Is it safe nowadays to run "make check -j4" for example? Last time I
> tried (maybe 1 or 2 years ago), there were still issues since some tests
> were using hard-coded temporary file names, so the parallel tests were
> disturbing each other, for example...
On 23.08.2017 10:01, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 23/08/2017 09:49, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> While we're at it: I'd like to have a "make check-fast", too. Sometimes
>> the normal "make check" is already too slow, e.g. while developing new
>> patches, I sometimes just want to do a very quick sanity test t
On 23/08/2017 09:49, Thomas Huth wrote:
> While we're at it: I'd like to have a "make check-fast", too. Sometimes
> the normal "make check" is already too slow, e.g. while developing new
> patches, I sometimes just want to do a very quick sanity test to see
> whether I broke some basic things or no
On 23.08.2017 09:16, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:29:07 +1000
> David Gibson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 01:48:15PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 21:20:46 +1000
>>> David Gibson wrote:
>>>
Obviously it's not a thing to fix right now, but I'v
22 matches
Mail list logo
