Re: [PATCH 0/2] enhance iotest 223 coverage

[Eric Blake]

On 9/24/19 2:26 PM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 24.09.2019 17:35, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Commit 506902c6 dropped non-iothread coverage in order to test iothread,
>> better is to run things twice.  In doing this, I found it easier to
>> edit the test when the log shows what commands were triggering various
>> responses.
> 
> Did you consider adding -iothread to tests/qemu-iotests/check instead, to be
> able to run any (or some) tests with or without iothread?

I don't know how many of the existing iotests would benefit from the
ability supply iothread as an option, nor how likely it is that someone
would actually remember to run the testsuite twice to cover the use of
that option.  I also don't know how hard it would be to retrofit the
addition of optional iothread support into all the tests.  Rather, I
addressed the more immediate concern of the fact that my recent addition
to using iothread in 223 lost the previous ability of that test to cover
non-iothread, and where this patch series now makes it cover both
scenarios with a single iotests run.

-- 
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature