From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc: "Ian Jackson" <iwj@xenproject.org>, "Wei Liu" <wl@xen.org>,
"Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>,
"Juergen Gross" <jgross@suse.com>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] tools/tests: More cleanup for automation improvements
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 14:59:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <88a88d81-38d3-f039-e8cd-342c07a09b14@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210622182124.11571-1-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
On 22.06.2021 20:21, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> v2:
> * Fix CI failures from newly-exposed logic
> * Drop -f's from $(RM)
> * Drop the 'run' rune patch. Its clearly controvertial, but ignoring the
> problems isn't an available option in the longterm.
What is "the problem" here? The presence of the run targets in
the first place (and their wiring up from the top level
Makefile, allowing direct invocation)? If so, I'm afraid so far
I haven't seen replacement proposals by you (nor why exactly
this would be a problem).
> All other RFC questions still outstanding.
I didn't find any here or in the individual patches.
Also a remark on patches 2 ... 4 each saying "fill in the
install/uninstall rules so this test can be packaged to be
automated sensibly": Why is running (or at least picking) tests
from the build area not an option in an automated environment?
And why is installing tests unconditionally a generally good
idea? I'd view this as unnecessary bloat for the majority of
downstreams.
Jan
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-28 13:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-22 18:21 [PATCH v2 0/4] tools/tests: More cleanup for automation improvements Andrew Cooper
2021-06-22 18:21 ` [PATCH 1/4] tools/tests: Drop obsolete mce-test infrastructure Andrew Cooper
2021-06-22 18:21 ` [PATCH 2/4] tests/resource: Rework Makefile Andrew Cooper
2021-06-28 12:42 ` Jan Beulich
2021-06-22 18:21 ` [PATCH 3/4] tests/cpu-policy: " Andrew Cooper
2021-06-28 12:47 ` Jan Beulich
2021-06-22 18:21 ` [PATCH 4/4] tests/xenstore: " Andrew Cooper
2021-06-28 12:52 ` Jan Beulich
2021-06-28 12:59 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=88a88d81-38d3-f039-e8cd-342c07a09b14@suse.com \
--to=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=iwj@xenproject.org \
--cc=jgross@suse.com \
--cc=roger.pau@citrix.com \
--cc=wl@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).