On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 5:44 PM, David Huff <dhuff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Uri Lublin wrote: >> Hi David, >> >> I'm not sure this patch-set makes development much easier, as it only >> saves adding one line (entry) in test_routines table, but is less >> flexible (e.g. force file-name and function-name of test routines). >> >> Moving the test to a separate kvm_tests directory can be done without >> dynamic load of the tests. >> >> I don't have strong feelings about it though. >> >> What others think ? >> >> Thanks, >> Uri. > > > Uri, > > Thanks for the feedback, Lucas and I had a brief discussion about this > last week so I just wanted to repost what I already had just as a > starting point for a discussion on this topic, I know my patches are rough. > > Our thinking is that it would be nice to be able to drop new tests in to > a kvm_test dir, modify the config file, and not have to "update" the > kvm_auottest or autotest binarys. > > However I would also like to hear others opinions on this... This looks nice to me. As the number of tests increase with time the code will still be modular and independent of testcases. Also one can very quickly add a set of new testcases to execute locally. This will keep the kvm_tests.py short. We can think the other way too. What are the issues with the new approach other than what Uri pointed out? > > -D > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- Sudhir Kumar -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
