On 23/06/2020 19.35, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 6/23/20 7:07 PM, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 23/06/2020 17.39, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>> On 6/23/20 4:56 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>> This reverts commit 6d1da867e65f ("tests/migration: Reduce autoconverge >>>> initial bandwidth") >>>> since that change makes unit tests much slower for all developers, while >>>> it's not >>>> a robust way to fix migration tests. Migration tests need to find >>>> a more robust way to discover a reasonable bandwidth without slowing >>>> things down for everyone. >>> >>> Please also mention we can do this since 1de8e4c4dcf which allow >>> marked the s390x job as "unstable" and allow it to fail. >>> >>> But if nobody is going to look at it, instead lets disable >>> it until someone figure out the issue: >>> >>> -- >8 -- >>> diff --git a/.travis.yml b/.travis.yml >>> index 74158f741b..364e67b14b 100644 >>> --- a/.travis.yml >>> +++ b/.travis.yml >>> @@ -507,6 +507,7 @@ jobs: >>> >>> - name: "[s390x] Clang (disable-tcg)" >>> arch: s390x >>> + if: false # Temporarily disabled due to issue testing migration >>> (see commit 6d1da867e65). >>> dist: bionic >>> compiler: clang >>> addons: >> >> Sorry, but that looks wrong. First, the disable-tcg test does not run >> the qtests at all. So this is certainly the wrong location here. > > Indeed, this is the previous job: > > -- >8 -- > diff --git a/.travis.yml b/.travis.yml > index 74158f741b..b399e20078 100644 > --- a/.travis.yml > +++ b/.travis.yml > @@ -464,6 +464,7 @@ jobs: > - CONFIG="--disable-containers > --target-list=ppc64-softmmu,ppc64le-linux-user" > > - name: "[s390x] GCC check-tcg" > + if: false # Temporarily disabled due to issue testing migration > (see commit 6d1da867e65). > arch: s390x > dist: bionic > addons: > --- > >> Second, >> if just one of the qtests is failing, please only disable that single >> failing qtest and not the whole test pipeline. > > Last time we talked about this Dave was against that option: > > https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg690085.html >
Was he? Citing his reply to the mail from your URL: "Before we take the hammer to it, could you try reducing it's initial bandwidth" So all I can see is that he first wanted to try something different than disabling the test. And now, instead of using a small hammer to disable just this test, you now even use a very *big* hammer to disable *all* tests. That's just a very bad idea. Please don't. Thomas