Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] [XM-TEST] Add support for VMX guests in xm-test

[Dan Smith <danms@xxxxxxxxxx>]

DS> 1) How shall we do reporting? Should we separate VMX systems from
DS> the current reporting structure?

I think that if we get all of the tests modified so that they SKIP
when appropriate, then we could let VMX tests merge into the existing
reporting structure.  However, I think that the plots on the front
page should be modified to show "number of failures", or perhaps
"percent of attempted tests that passed".  I think this would still
give us a reasonable view of how well things are going, including VMX
tests. 

Perhaps someone has a better metric that would make more sense?

DS> 2) How shall we refer to full-virt and para-virt domains in the
DS> future?  DomU vs VMX guest? Since our goal is to test them
DS> concurrently on the appropriate hardware, how shall we refer to
DS> them in the tests?

For the platform-agnostic tests (i.e. tests that will just start guest
domains and will work on either paravirt or VMX), we could refer to
them simply as "guests" or "domains".  Tests that specifically start
PV-only or VMX-only domains can refer to them as something else.
Perhaps PVDomain and HVDomain (HV for Hardware Virtualization)?  This
would cover both VT and Pacifica.

-- 
Dan Smith
IBM Linux Technology Center
Open Hypervisor Team
email: danms@xxxxxxxxxx


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