> On Jul 30, 2020, at 12:35 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 30/07/20 09:13, Wanpeng Li wrote: >>>> I personally dislike renames as you will have old references lurking in >>>> the internet for decades. A rename will result in people continue to using >>>> the old code because the old name is the only thing that they know. >>> >>> +1 for keeping the old name. >>> >>> cpu-unit-tests might also not be completely fitting (I remember we >>> already do test, or will test in the future I/O stuff like PCI, CCW, ...). >>> >>> IMHO, It's much more a collection of tests to verify >>> architecture/standard/whatever compliance (including paravirtualized >>> interfaces if available). > > Good point. > >> Vote for keeping the old name. > > Ok, so either old name or alternatively arch-unit-tests? But the > majority seems to be for kvm-unit-tests, and if Nadav has no trouble > contributing to them I suppose everyone else can too. Indeed. My employer (VMware) did not give me hard time (so far) in contributing to the project just because it has KVM in its name. We (VMware) also benefit from kvm-unit-tests, and Paolo and others were receptive to changes that I made to make it more kvm/qemu -independent. This is what matters. So I am ok with the name being kvm-unit-tests. But I would ask/recommend that the project description [1] be updated to reflect the fact that the project is hypervisor-agnostic. This should have practical implications. I remember, for example, that I had a discussion with Paolo in the past regarding “xpass” being reported as a failure. The rationale was that if a test that is expected to fail on KVM (since KVM is known to be broken) surprisingly passes, there is some problem that should be reported as a failure. I would argue that if the project is hypervisor-agnostic, “xpass” is not a failure. So it is much more important how the project is defined than how it is named. [1] http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/KVM-unit-tests
