From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9BEBC433DF for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 08:58:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6DC72075F for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 08:58:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="I8GTdkx+" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B6DC72075F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:57966 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jbKYz-00026d-0Z for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 20 May 2020 04:58:57 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46800) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jbKYI-0001DX-B7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 May 2020 04:58:14 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.61]:55641 helo=us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jbKYG-0001QR-S1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 May 2020 04:58:14 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1589965091; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=jAjC8Tv7YrmSgnHGy6FyOLQlwHYeoJF8+anYg9n4dOE=; b=I8GTdkx+EcTIE2l7rzOoEnRsAlQB+QgwOjiYOftOllC9053m6JwuEN2wCVvQlmmetXZVBM PwIJ0GW89s3kkqUvSnIjPwbWROB0nWSw/elP28aaYjURgWJVPuHn6E9FcfsAQ8rGaldP6G pinZ/zrWqkn5NDQRIf6ohU79/2vGTBM= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-160-O5Akpfo6N92GSfYbX2MEvQ-1; Wed, 20 May 2020 04:57:52 -0400 X-MC-Unique: O5Akpfo6N92GSfYbX2MEvQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C573800053; Wed, 20 May 2020 08:57:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.36.110.3]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B864A5C1C8; Wed, 20 May 2020 08:57:42 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 09:57:39 +0100 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: John Snow Subject: Re: QEMU 5.1: Can we require each new device/machine to provided a test? Message-ID: <20200520085739.GA2194189@redhat.com> References: <96440c8b-7f38-8fc4-0e9c-07ad878211e2@redhat.com> <20200515102321.GH1300305@redhat.com> <613f5cf5-7019-7447-6ba1-8050ab05303a@redhat.com> <20200519090441.GD2003821@redhat.com> <166b5fd7-2583-fdb1-6fb6-fd6b64e92d7f@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <166b5fd7-2583-fdb1-6fb6-fd6b64e92d7f@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.13.4 (2020-02-15) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline Received-SPF: pass client-ip=205.139.110.61; envelope-from=berrange@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/20 02:22:41 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -10 X-Spam_score: -1.1 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Cc: Peter Maydell , Thomas Huth , Eduardo Habkost , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org Developers" , Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= , Markus Armbruster , Gerd Hoffmann , Cleber Rosa , Paolo Bonzini , qemu-discuss@nongnu.org, David Gibson Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 07:06:40PM -0400, John Snow wrote: > > > On 5/19/20 5:04 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 03:56:36PM -0400, John Snow wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 5/15/20 6:23 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > >>> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:11:17PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > >>>> On 07/04/2020 12.59, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > >>>>> Hello, > >>>>> > >>>>> Following Markus thread on deprecating unmaintained (untested) code > >>>>> (machines) [1] and the effort done to gather the information shared in > >>>>> the replies [2], and the various acceptance tests added, is it > >>>>> feasible to require for the next release that each new device/machine > >>>>> is provided a test covering it? > >>>>> > >>>>> If no, what is missing? > >>>> > >>>> If a qtest is feasible, yes, I think we should require one for new > >>>> devices. But what about machines - you normally need a test image for > >>>> this. In that case, there is still the question where testing images > >>>> could be hosted. Not every developer has a web space where they could > >>>> put their test images onto. And what about images that contain non-free > >>>> code? > >>> > >>> Yep, it isn't feasible to make this a hard rule. > >>> > >>> IMHO this is where a support tier classification comes into play > >>> > >>> - Tier 1: actively maintained, qtest coverage available. Expected > >>> to work reliably at all times since every commit is CI > >>> tested > >>> > >>> - Tier 2: actively maintained, no qtest coverage. Should usually > >>> work but regression may creep in due to reliance on the > >>> maintainer to manually test on adhoc basis > >>> > >>> - Tier 3: not actively maintained, unknown state but liable to > >>> be broken indefinitely > >>> > >>> Tier 1 is obviously the most desirable state we would like everthing to > >>> be at. Contributors will have to fix problems their patches cause as > >>> they will be blocked by CI. > >>> > >>> Tier 2 is an admission that reality gets in the way. Ideally stuff in > >>> this tier will graduate to Tier 1 at some point. Even if it doesn't > >>> though, it is still valid to keep it in QEMU long term. Contributors > >>> shouldn't gratuitously break stuff in these board, but if they do, > >>> then the maintainer is ultimately responsible for fixing it, as the > >>> contributors don't have a test rig for it. > >>> > >>> Tier 3 is abandonware. If a maintainer doesn't appear, users should > >>> not expect it to continue to exist long term. Contributors are free > >>> to send patches which break this, and are under no obligation to > >>> fix problems in these boards. We may deprecate & delete it after a > >>> while > >>> > >>> > >>> Over time we'll likely add more criteria to stuff in Tier 1. This > >>> could lead to some things dropping from Tier 1 to Tier 2. This is > >>> OK, as it doesn't make those things worse than they already were. > >>> We're just saying that Tier 2 isn't as thoroughly tested as we > >>> would like it to be in an ideal world. > >> > >> I really like the idea of device support tiers codified directly in the > >> QEMU codebase, to give upstream users some idea of which devices we > >> expect to work and which we ... don't, really. > >> > >> Not every last device we offer is enterprise production ready, but we > >> don't necessarily do a good job of explaining which devices fall into > >> which categories, and we've got quite a few of them. > >> > >> I wonder if a 2.5th tier would be useful; something like a "hobbyist" > >> tier for pet project SoC boards and the like -- they're not abandoned, > >> but we also don't expect them to work, exactly. > >> > >> Mild semantic difference from Tier 3. > > > > I guess I was thinking such hobbyist stuff would fall into tier 2 if the > > hobbyist maintainer actually responds to fixing stuff, or tier 3 if they > > largely aren't active on the mailing list responding to issues/questions. > > > > We add have a 4 tier system overall and put hobbyist stuff at tier 3, > > and abandonware at tier 4. > > > > Probably shouldn't go beyond 4 tiers though, as the more criteria we add > > the harder it is to clearly decide which tier something should go into. > > > > The tier 1 vs 2 divison is clearly split based on CI which is a simple > > classification to decide on. > > > > The tier 2 vs 3 division is moderately clearly split based on whether > > there is a frequently active maintainer. > > > > We can probably squeeze in the 4th tier without too much ambiguity in > > the classisfication if we think it is adding something worthwhile either > > from our POV as maintainers, or for users consuming it. > > Yes, I didn't mean to start watering it down into a 1,380 tier system > that we're never able to properly utilize. > > I was thinking more along the lines of: > > - Device works and is well loved > - Device works and is well loved (but we have to test manually) > - Device doesn't work, but is well loved > (Use at your own peril, please file a bug report) > - Device doesn't work, and is unloved > > Perhaps it'd be clearer to name these Tier 1A, 1B, 2, and 3; where > things can shift from 1A to 1B as their test coverage allows, but it's > not meant to indicate general status otherwise. Yeah 1A/1B would be fairly effective. > Mostly, I would just like some way for users to avoid accidentally > running tier 2 or 3 devices /by accident/, or the ability to compile > QEMU versions that only allow tier 1 devices to be used. > > It's all arbitrary -- but I think we agree more than not! I'd love to > have a list of first-class boards and devices that we promise to test > and have working. Yes, I think we're basically in agreement on the both the goal and way to achieve it. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|