LGTM
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues l...@redhat.com
wrote:
Fix a silly bug on graph generation: it was mapping the wrong
columns when plotting the 2D throughput graphs. Sorry for the
mistake.
Signed-off-by: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues l...@redhat.com
---
only thing that strikes me is whether the gnuplot support
should be abstracted out a bit. See tko/plotgraph.py ?
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues l...@redhat.com
wrote:
This module contains code to postprocess IOzone data
in a convenient way so we can generate
yup, fair enough. Go ahead and check it in. If we end up doing
this in another test, we should make an abstraction
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues l...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 16:52 -0700, Martin Bligh wrote:
only thing that strikes me is whether
I'm slightly surprised this isn't called from postprocess
in the test? Any downside to doing that?
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues
l...@redhat.com wrote:
This module contains code to postprocess IOzone data
in a convenient way so we can generate performance graphs
and
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues
l...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 14:23 -0700, Martin Bligh wrote:
I'm slightly surprised this isn't called from postprocess
in the test? Any downside to doing that?
In the second patch I do the change to make the test
+cc:md (he wrote the test).
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues
l...@redhat.com wrote:
The Makefile for the monotonic_test C program forces static
compilation of the object files. Since we are compiling the
code already, not having a static binary doesn't make much
of a
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues
l...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Martin Bligh mbl...@google.com wrote:
+cc:md (he wrote the test).
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues
l...@redhat.com wrote:
The Makefile
yup, seems important - lmr, do you want to go ahead and apply this? I'm stuck
in a meeting for a while
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:39 PM, John Admanski jadman...@google.com wrote:
This looks good to me.
-- John
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues l...@redhat.com
wrote:
I thought about it a bit more:
Maybe a better approach would be to have the global_config module find
the ini file in job.autodir (so on a client it would show up in the
client/ dir, and on the server in the true top-level dir) and then
add support to Autotest.run so that it copies over the
If any of those tests fails (with some built in fault tolerance for a
small
hardware fallout rate), we stop the testing. All of that control flow
is governed by a control file. It sounds complex, but it's really not
if you build your building blocks carefully, and it's extremely powerful
+1
The advantages I see are: 1. it more closely follows the current
autotest structure/layout, 2. solves the problem of separating each test
out of the ever growing kvm_test.py and gives a sub dir of each test for
better structure (something we have been talking about) and 3. addresses
the
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodriguesl...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 7:08 AM, sudhir kumarsmalik...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 6:05 AM, Martin Blighmbl...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 4:29 AM, sudhir kumarsmalik...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 4:29 AM, sudhir kumarsmalik...@gmail.com wrote:
So is there any plan for adding this patch set in the patch queue? I
would love to incorporate all the comments if any.
Yup, just was behind on patches.
I added it now - the mailer you are using seems to chew patches
Yup, we can pass an excluded test list. I really wish they'd fix their
tests, but I've been saying that for 6 years now, and it hasn't happened
yet ;-(
I would slightly disagree to that. 6 years is history. But, have you
recently checked with LTP ?
I hate to be completely cynical about
ATM I will suggest to merge the patches in and let get tested so that
we can collect failures/breakages if any.
I am not keen on causing regressions, which we've risked doing every
time we change LTP. I think we at least need to get a run on a non-virtualized
machine with some recent kernel,
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:14 AM, sudhir kumarsmalik...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
In order to include netperf tests under kvm guests run I have been
trying to run netperf testsuit in autotest but I am getting barrier
failures. I want to understand the philosophy of implementation of the
autotest
Issues: LTP has a history of some of the testcases getting broken.
Right, that's always the concern with doing this.
Anyways
that has nothing to worry about with respect to autotest. One of the known
issue
is broken memory controller issue with latest kernels(cgroups and memory
resource
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodriguesl...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 14:43 +0300, Alexey Eremenko wrote:
LMR: me too, hate putting binaries in source tree, but the alternative
option is to provide separate *.tar.bz2 for all the binary utils, and
I don't sure
LMR: me too, hate putting binaries in source tree, but the alternative
option is to provide separate *.tar.bz2 for all the binary utils, and
I don't sure which way is better.
Yes, I don't have a clear idea as well. It's currently under
discussion...
Is KVM x86_64 only?
It's x86-64,
From: root r...@dhcp-66-70-57.nay.redhat.com
Signed-off-by: root r...@dhcp-66-70-57.nay.redhat.com
---
;-)
Can we get these signed off by a person please? Preferably with a real email
address (see the DCO, in top level directory)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Alexey Eromenkoaerom...@redhat.com wrote:
- Martin Bligh mbl...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Alexey Eromenkoaerom...@redhat.com
wrote:
Even better would be to use /usr/bin/python2.
That doesn't seem to exist, on Ubuntu at least
/sleeptest.control
diff --git a/client/tests/kvm/autotest_control/bonnie.control
b/client/tests/kvm/autotest_control/bonnie.control
new file mode 100644
index 000..2717a80
--- /dev/null
+++ b/client/tests/kvm/autotest_control/bonnie.control
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+AUTHOR = Martin Bligh mbl...@google.com
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Alexey Eromenkoaerom...@redhat.com wrote:
Even better would be to use /usr/bin/python2.
That doesn't seem to exist, on Ubuntu at least.
This is because future distros will include python3, which is incompatible
with python2 code.
python will be symlink of
Looks good.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodriguesl...@redhat.com wrote:
All kvm modules that can be used as stand alone programs were
updated to use #!/usr/bin/python instead of #!/usr/bin/env python,
complying with the rest of the autotest code base. As suggested
by
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodriguesl...@redhat.com wrote:
pickle allows more control over the load/save process. Specifically, it
enables us to dump the contents of an object to disk without having to
unpickle it.
shelve, which uses pickle, seems to pickle and unpickle
if it's specific to one test or whatever, you could also just put it
inside the message?
Possibly with your own wrapper function around the logging?
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodriguesl...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 06:35 -0400, Michael Goldish wrote:
Hi Lucas,
26 matches
Mail list logo
