On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:04:55AM +0200, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
> On 11/29/2009 9:20 AM, Yolkfull Chow wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:35:02AM +0530, sudhir kumar wrote:
> >>This patch adds a test for verifying whether the number of cpus and amount
> >>of memory as seen inside a guest is same as a
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues
wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 08:59 +0530, sudhir kumar wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Yolkfull Chow wrote:
>> >
>> > Looks good for me. Thanks Lucas for improving this test.
>> >
>> > Sudhir, what do you think about this? :)
>
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 08:59 +0530, sudhir kumar wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Yolkfull Chow wrote:
> >
> > Looks good for me. Thanks Lucas for improving this test.
> >
> > Sudhir, what do you think about this? :)
> Needs couple of hours before I go through the patch. I will post my
> co
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Yolkfull Chow wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 11:56:43AM -0200, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
>> Hi Sudhir and Yolkfull:
>>
>> Thanks for your work on this test! Since Yolkfull's test matches
>> Sudhir's test functionality and extends it, I will go with it. Some
On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 11:56:43AM -0200, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
> Hi Sudhir and Yolkfull:
>
> Thanks for your work on this test! Since Yolkfull's test matches
> Sudhir's test functionality and extends it, I will go with it. Some
> points:
>
> * A failure on checking a given resource sh
Hi Sudhir and Yolkfull:
Thanks for your work on this test! Since Yolkfull's test matches
Sudhir's test functionality and extends it, I will go with it. Some
points:
* A failure on checking a given resource shouldn't prevent us from
testing other resources. Hence, instead of TestFail() exceptions
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 02:22:40PM +0530, sudhir kumar wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Yolkfull Chow wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:35:02AM +0530, sudhir kumar wrote:
> >> This patch adds a test for verifying whether the number of cpus and amount
> >> of memory as seen inside a g
On 11/29/2009 9:20 AM, Yolkfull Chow wrote:
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:35:02AM +0530, sudhir kumar wrote:
This patch adds a test for verifying whether the number of cpus and amount
of memory as seen inside a guest is same as allocated to it on the qemu
command line.
Hello Sudhir,
Ple
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Yolkfull Chow wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:35:02AM +0530, sudhir kumar wrote:
>> This patch adds a test for verifying whether the number of cpus and amount
>> of memory as seen inside a guest is same as allocated to it on the qemu
>> command line.
>
> Hello
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:35:02AM +0530, sudhir kumar wrote:
> This patch adds a test for verifying whether the number of cpus and amount
> of memory as seen inside a guest is same as allocated to it on the qemu
> command line.
Hello Sudhir,
Please see embedded comments as below:
>
> Signed-o
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 13:14 +0530, sudhir kumar wrote:
> Folks,
> Any comments on the patch below ?
I'll get to it today and comment on it, Sudhir, thanks!
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:35 AM, sudhir kumar wrote:
> > This patch adds a test for verifying whether the number of cpus and amount
> > o
Folks,
Any comments on the patch below ?
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:35 AM, sudhir kumar wrote:
> This patch adds a test for verifying whether the number of cpus and amount
> of memory as seen inside a guest is same as allocated to it on the qemu
> command line.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sudhir Kumar
>
This patch adds a test for verifying whether the number of cpus and amount
of memory as seen inside a guest is same as allocated to it on the qemu
command line.
Signed-off-by: Sudhir Kumar
Index: kvm/tests/verify_resources.py
===
--
13 matches
Mail list logo
