WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-cim

Re: [Xen-cim] Testing with own kernel and ramdisk

To: "Szymanski, Lukasz K" <Lukasz.Szymanski@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-cim] Testing with own kernel and ramdisk
From: Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:55:52 -0600
Cc: xen-cim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:53:35 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <mailto:xen-cim-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: xen-cim mailing list <xen-cim.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-cim@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-cim>, <mailto:xen-cim-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-cim>, <mailto:xen-cim-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: 94C8C9E8B25F564F95185BDA64AB05F6054F3291@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: xen-cim-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20060911)
Szymanski, Lukasz K wrote:
> Jim -
>
> Just a thought from our discussion this morning ... If a user does not
> wish to run with the xm test kernel and ramdisk, but has their own
> ramdisk and kernel they are willing to expose to the rigors of our
> testing - then that should work too.  I think that would solve your
> problem of not wanting to have xm-test but having vm's on a box.  So the
> logic would go something like this:
>
> If (no xm-test)
>       Do you want to run xm-test?
>       If (no)
>               Do you want to run this test with your own vm's?
>               If (yes)
>                       Enter kernel, ramdisk, disk
>               If (no)
>                       Just run extrinsics.
>
> Thoughts?  If we go with this approach, does the 'make runtest' solution
> still make the most sense?
>   

Initially, I think the logic should just simply be

If (xm test found)
    do whatever necessary to 'build' xm test ramdisk if not already built
    call DefineSystem() to create a vm with sane config that uses ramdisk
    activate vm with RequestStateChange
    run existing instance and association interface tests
    deactivate vm with RequestStateChange
    call DestroySystem() to nuke vm
else
    run existing instance and association interface tests

When xm test is found, this logic will already test some stuff not
currently tested, e.g. the extrinsic methods [Define|Destroy]System and
RequestStateChange.  We can certainly add a lot later, e.g. checking
properties against known configuration, executing additional extrinsic
methods, etc.

I'm happy with the 'else' case above staying as it is.  I don't think
there is a need to support, in an automated fashion, the myriad of vm
configurations a user may have.

I don't see a problem with this logic being invoked by 'make runtest'
target.

Jim

> Luke
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-cim mailing list
> Xen-cim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-cim
>   

_______________________________________________
Xen-cim mailing list
Xen-cim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-cim

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>