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=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 93575C433DF for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 07:13:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E5E420838 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 07:13:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="llz1hS3m" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728858AbgG3HNl (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jul 2020 03:13:41 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:44506 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726261AbgG3HNl (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jul 2020 03:13:41 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-x241.google.com (mail-oi1-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::241]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0FFFC061794 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 00:13:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi1-x241.google.com with SMTP id y22so22929342oie.8 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 00:13:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=o3sAhIVQ0azZpYHrUfnJ1dvzP8xZF2WLd0HbSWO3pxs=; b=llz1hS3m28x/N6gBltEen73pmeMmXH9gbiGbJjXByAyaGvxi7GaSFIs+MtYCz/JXV+ JKqjnpIl6WYQHjPiPBTDkGpt8G0d3YmARw3Mr82+xucAK1Atvxg/ki23nPgKERTjM8Nx fIjn6msqHpPQIMGWwDzx6xwAgrR9wenOpVsqRAv8KfEsLB7ZJC69YhX7NjZJIn2BRvaN nE6Wlggi3NmU8nC0mla9rD3kVosgQu+7IELKEznvcSGQngiia1iUhtA4k8MtXcp9X6Uv NEUFL9Xc+4C2CieY1DbN3syfZS557VswfJoh4sEBr1cfdRUp4wz0rNciKXbNi4LImvQJ Dg9A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=o3sAhIVQ0azZpYHrUfnJ1dvzP8xZF2WLd0HbSWO3pxs=; b=VATZbjJWl4N+kYFYaiOmMrIqPauQ94Iv4F8C+cjmF3aF3e+F4G6BIQC7As6IUSYwOh 0iz+x8BeNZEiqtrA2gPeUQGSnVyYyFSg2SqfahRSqsW0gq49qKvjhZBlZuBiUhWrltBv 7SJ1BOT4n6CwT9eNg14uLA4vT9RC9732qcuy2n3CmNrlJOnrpbTINLZnB3J7SROIDwE1 aiQRAytNHlT+IQCvjdJRh3V070KJkj8mvk1IdoHItH8zbKiG9HWnb/Fit2oLMkr71iIH TkzTikqcIjuHNDni3ZVHoDrvCINRXOy+2oyJtsiBh+mXm9KKoNHIJlf9YBqokCXERhxY 7wIA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533fg7ViQzdtihdQbSyUghB9ZkgdR8VHjd1a2xcbp4picmtZEjk+ zxy+5cj7yNzAxKQ0L+XjuHLHOVyQ5JtPi2iXgG8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwARtNDWQnPtEZJ808eotgGy+f3iiIe0XULWIjz28U5vu65tqt5debvvkl921nIve1lYzHeWca9RPw9rGOcILo= X-Received: by 2002:aca:5842:: with SMTP id m63mr10701580oib.5.1596093220229; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 00:13:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <682fe35c-f4ea-2540-f692-f23a42c6d56b@de.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: From: Wanpeng Li Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 15:13:28 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: A new name for kvm-unit-tests ? To: David Hildenbrand Cc: Christian Borntraeger , Thomas Huth , KVM , Paolo Bonzini , Laurent Vivier , Andrew Jones , Janosch Frank , Nadav Amit , Liran Alon , Sean Christopherson Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 15:10, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > On 30.07.20 08:38, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > > > > On 30.07.20 07:41, Thomas Huth wrote: > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> since Paolo recently suggested to decrease the bus factor for > >> kvm-unit-tests [1], I suggested (in a private mail) to maybe also move > >> the repo to one of the git forges where we could benefit from a CI > > > > ack. > > > >> system (so that we do not merge bugs so often anymore as it happened in > >> the previous months). If we do that step, that might be a good point in > >> time to rename the kvm-unit-tests to something more adequate. "Why?" you > >> might ask ... well, the unit tests are not only useful for kvm anymore: > > > > 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. > > > > [...] > >> Maybe we should come up with a more fancy name for the test suite? For > >> example something like "HECATE" - "*H*ypervisor *E*xecution and *C*pu > >> instruction *A*dvanced *T*est *E*nvironment" (and Hecate is also the > >> goddess of boundaries - which you could translate to the hypervisor > >> being the boundary between the virtual and real machine ... with a > >> little bit of imagination, of course) ... well, yeah, that's just what > >> came to my mind so far, of course. Let's brainstorm ... do you have any > >> good ideas for a new name of the kvm-unit-tests? Or do you love the old > >> name and think it should stay? Or do you think cpu-unit-tests would be > >> the best fit? Please let us know! > > > > If we rename than hecate or cpu-unit-tests is fine for me, but I prefer > > to keep the old name. > > +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). Vote for keeping the old name. Wanpeng