Re: A new name for kvm-unit-tests ?

[Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 07:50:39AM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 2020, at 12:35 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On 30/07/20 09:13, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >>>> I personally dislike renames as you will have old references lurking in
> >>>> the internet for decades. A rename will result in people continue to using
> >>>> the old code because the old name is the only thing that they know.
> >>> 
> >>> +1 for keeping the old name.
> >>> 
> >>> cpu-unit-tests might also not be completely fitting (I remember we
> >>> already do test, or will test in the future I/O stuff like PCI, CCW, ...).
> >>> 
> >>> IMHO, It's much more a collection of tests to verify
> >>> architecture/standard/whatever compliance (including paravirtualized
> >>> interfaces if available).
> > 
> > Good point.
> > 
> >> Vote for keeping the old name.
> > 
> > Ok, so either old name or alternatively arch-unit-tests?  But the
> > majority seems to be for kvm-unit-tests, and if Nadav has no trouble
> > contributing to them I suppose everyone else can too.
> 
> Indeed. My employer (VMware) did not give me hard time (so far) in
> contributing to the project just because it has KVM in its name. We (VMware)
> also benefit from kvm-unit-tests, and Paolo and others were receptive to
> changes that I made to make it more kvm/qemu -independent. This is what
> matters.
> 
> So I am ok with the name being kvm-unit-tests. But I would ask/recommend
> that the project description [1] be updated to reflect the fact that the
> project is hypervisor-agnostic.

Good idea. Although while I authored what you see there, I don't really
want to sign up to do all the writing. How about when we create the gitlab
project we also create a .md file that we redirect [1] to? Then anybody
can submit patches for it going forward.

> 
> This should have practical implications. I remember, for example, that I had
> a discussion with Paolo in the past regarding “xpass” being reported as a
> failure. The rationale was that if a test that is expected to fail on KVM
> (since KVM is known to be broken) surprisingly passes, there is some problem
> that should be reported as a failure. I would argue that if the project is
> hypervisor-agnostic, “xpass” is not a failure.

We can use compile-time or run-time logic that depends on the target to
decide whether a test should be a normal test (pass/fail) or an
xpass/xfail test.

Thanks,
drew

> 
> So it is much more important how the project is defined than how it is
> named.
> 
> [1] http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/KVM-unit-tests