On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:52 AM, sudhir kumar<smalikphy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:59 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues<lmr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Adding iperf network performance test. Basically it tests >> networking functionality, stability and performance of guest OSes. >> This test is cross-platform -- i.e. it works on both Linux and >> Windows VMs. >> > > I have a question here. Why are we adding iperf in a way different > than other tests ? We have client/tests/<different_tests> directory > for each test which contains the python modules and the test tarball. > Then why in case of iperf we are putting it under client/tests/kvm and > modifying kvm.py instead of putting the testsuit as part of > autotest(run_autotest is not enough?)? Even if we do not want to touch > the existing iperf test in autotest we can use a separate name like > kvm_iperf. Somehow I have a feeling that there was a discussion on the > list for keeping tests under a particular directory. But still I feel > that should be only for tests specific to KVM and not the guest. Is > there any disadvantage of using the current approach of executing > these testsuits ? The reason to put my test under "kvm/" test, is because it depends on KVM-Autotest framework, not just on generic Autotest framework. In addition, the test is cross-platform on the guest side, currently supporting Windows and Linux guests, with possibility to support Solaris and BSD in future. 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. -- -Alexey Eromenko -- 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
