Cleber Rosa <cr...@redhat.com> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 11:20 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 11:01:43AM -0500, Cleber Rosa wrote: >> > On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 6:25 AM Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> wrote: >> > > >> > > We have up to now tried really hard as a project to avoid building and >> > > hosting our own binaries to avoid theoretical* GPL compliance issues. >> > > This is why we've ended up relying so much on distros to build and host >> > > binaries we can use. Most QEMU developers have their own personal zoo of >> > > kernels and userspaces which they use for testing. I use custom kernels >> > > with a buildroot user space in initramfs for example. We even use the >> > > qemu advent calendar for a number of our avocado tests but we basically >> > > push responsibility for GPL compliance to the individual developers in >> > > that case. >> > > >> > > *theoretical in so far I suspect most people would be happy with a >> > > reference to an upstream repo/commit and .config even if that is not to >> > > the letter of the "offer of source code" required for true compliance. >> > > >> > >> > Yes, it'd be fine (great, really!) if a lightweight distro (or >> > kernels/initrd) were to >> > be maintained and identified as an "official" QEMU pick. Putting the >> > binaries >> > in the source tree though, brings all sorts of compliance issues. >> >> All that's really needed is to have the source + build recipes >> in a separate git repo. A pipeline can build them periodically >> and publish artifacts, which QEMU can then consume in its pipeline. >> > > I get your point, but then to acquire the artifacts one needs to: > > 1. depend on the CI system to deploy the artifacts in subsequent job > stages (a limitation IMO), OR > 2. if outside the CI, implement a download/cache mechanism for those > artifacts, which gets us back to the previous point, only with a > different distro/kernel+initrd. > > With that, the value proposal has to be in the characteristics of > distro/kernel+initrd itself. It has to have enough differentiation to > justify the development/maintenance work, as opposed to using existing > ones. > > FWIW, my non-scientific tests booting on my 3+ YO machine: > > * CirrOS x86_64+KVM: ~2 seconds > * CirroOS aarch64+TCG: ~20 seconds > * Fedora kernel+initrd aarch64+TCG > (tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_aarch64_virt): > ~1 second > > I would imagine that CirrOS aarch64+KVM on an adequate system would be > similar to the CirrOS x86_64+KVM. We can develop/maintain a slimmer > distro, and/or set the default test workloads where they perform the > best. The development cost of the latter is quite small. I've added > a missing bit to the filtering capabilities in Avocado[1] and will > send a proposal to QEMU along these lines. FWIW the bit I'm interested in for the slow test in question here is that it does a full boot through the EDK2 bios (EL3->EL2->EL1). I'm not overly concerned about what gets run in userspace as long as something is run that shows EL0 can be executed and handle task switching. I suspect most of the userspace startup of a full distro basically just ends up testing the same code paths over and over again. > > Regards, > - Cleber. > > [1] https://github.com/avocado-framework/avocado/pull/5245 -- Alex Bennée
