On Wed, Oct 08, 2025 at 01:55:09PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > Before we do that, I'd first see a solution for the problem that I described > > in my series here: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/[email protected]/ > > > > which, by the way, contains a patch that is very similar to yours here. > > IIUC, the problem you're concerned with is that 'make check SPEED=thorough' > is running too much, and you want to stop running skipped tests directly.
Or at least reduce the output (easier to focus on the success/failures if less effort is spent on telling us about skips). > > My view is that running "make check SPEED=thorough" is undesirable in > general, even before either of our patch series. I'd say it is almost > never what people actually want to use, and is only picked because of > the lack of a better option. That's why I thought 'make check-block-qed' > (and equiva for other formats) was a better option, as it gives a make > target that matches a specific testing use case. With that in mind, IMHO > it is less important if 'make check SPEED=thorough' waste a bit of time > launched irrelevant tests. The two ideas (adding more test targets, reducing output on skipped tests) seem orthogonal and independently useful, but it does create the question on how to resolve the conflicts on what lands first ;) > > > Also not sure whether we should add "nbd" to the "formats" list - it's a > > protocol, and not a format, isn't it? > > Yes, technically there are two distinct axis formats vs protocols, but > from the POV of running the 'check' script the boundary is rather blurred. > > You can run './check -nbd' and './check -qcow2', or both combined. The main > limit that you can only pick a single format and single protocol at a time. In fact, I've seen times where './check -nbd -raw' passes but './check -nbd -qcow2' fails, because that combination enables different sets of tests. So we probably STILL aren't giving CI everything possible to test by having just one dimension of easy-to-name test subsets, but it is still better than no CI nbd tests at all. > > IMHO for test suites it is preferrable to keep a flat namespace, rather > than creating a matrix of suites for protocol vs format combniations. > > Perhaps the meson.build variable should just be renamed from _formats > to something else. Renaming makes sense to me; would _bds be a reasonable name (since both protocols and formats are a BDS)? I'm open to other naming ideas, as well. -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. Virtualization: qemu.org | libguestfs.org
