| Message ID | 20191029232320.12419-1-crosa@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Acceptance test: update kernel used on m68k/q800 test | expand |
Cleber Rosa <crosa@redhat.com> writes: > The boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_m68k_q800 was very > recently merged, but between its last review and now, the Kernel > package used went missing. > > This updates the Kernel package, and protects the test from failing > if it gets updated again. Queued to testing/next, thanks. I'll roll it up with Daniel's fix to get green again. > > Cleber Rosa (2): > Acceptance test: cancel test if m68k kernel packages goes missing > Acceptance test: update kernel for m68k/q800 test > > tests/acceptance/boot_linux_console.py | 11 +++++++---- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) -- Alex Bennée
On 10/29/19 6:23 PM, Cleber Rosa wrote: > The boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_m68k_q800 was very > recently merged, but between its last review and now, the Kernel > package used went missing. > meta-question: Why was this series posted in-reply-to the pull request, rather than as a new top-level thread? I nearly missed it because I don't expect to see unreviewed patches buried in threading like that. My workflow would have been to post the series in isolation, then manually reply to the pull request to mention the message-id of the related series proposed as a followup.
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Blake" <eblake@redhat.com> > To: "Cleber Rosa" <crosa@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org > Cc: "Peter Maydell" <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, "Eduardo Habkost" <ehabkost@redhat.com>, "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" > <f4bug@amsat.org>, "Wainer dos Santos Moschetta" <wainersm@redhat.com>, "Laurent Vivier" <laurent@vivier.eu>, > "Willian Rampazzo" <wrampazz@redhat.com>, "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@redhat.com> > Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2019 10:43:08 AM > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Acceptance test: update kernel used on m68k/q800 test > > On 10/29/19 6:23 PM, Cleber Rosa wrote: > > The boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_m68k_q800 was very > > recently merged, but between its last review and now, the Kernel > > package used went missing. > > > > meta-question: Why was this series posted in-reply-to the pull request, > rather than as a new top-level thread? I nearly missed it because I > don't expect to see unreviewed patches buried in threading like that. > My workflow would have been to post the series in isolation, then > manually reply to the pull request to mention the message-id of the > related series proposed as a followup. > Hi Eric, That was my attempt to signal that it was a fix to something which had *just* being merged as part of that pull request (though now caused by it). I basically did not know how to act properly, so I thank you for the workflow suggestion. I'll certainly follow it next time. Thanks a lot! - Cleber. > -- > Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer > Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226 > Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org >
Le 07/11/2019 à 17:38, Cleber Rosa a écrit : > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Eric Blake" <eblake@redhat.com> >> To: "Cleber Rosa" <crosa@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org >> Cc: "Peter Maydell" <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, "Eduardo Habkost" <ehabkost@redhat.com>, "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" >> <f4bug@amsat.org>, "Wainer dos Santos Moschetta" <wainersm@redhat.com>, "Laurent Vivier" <laurent@vivier.eu>, >> "Willian Rampazzo" <wrampazz@redhat.com>, "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@redhat.com> >> Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2019 10:43:08 AM >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Acceptance test: update kernel used on m68k/q800 test >> >> On 10/29/19 6:23 PM, Cleber Rosa wrote: >>> The boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_m68k_q800 was very >>> recently merged, but between its last review and now, the Kernel >>> package used went missing. >>> >> >> meta-question: Why was this series posted in-reply-to the pull request, >> rather than as a new top-level thread? I nearly missed it because I >> don't expect to see unreviewed patches buried in threading like that. >> My workflow would have been to post the series in isolation, then >> manually reply to the pull request to mention the message-id of the >> related series proposed as a followup. >> > > Hi Eric, > > That was my attempt to signal that it was a fix to something which had *just* > being merged as part of that pull request (though now caused by it). > > I basically did not know how to act properly, so I thank you for the workflow > suggestion. I'll certainly follow it next time. IMHO, you should send your series and then replies to the pull request to tell you have sent your series that fixes the patch in the pull request, or vice-versa. But your series has been queued by Alex, so there is no problem... Thanks, Laurent
On 11/7/19 6:18 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote: > Le 07/11/2019 à 17:38, Cleber Rosa a écrit : >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Eric Blake" <eblake@redhat.com> >>> To: "Cleber Rosa" <crosa@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org >>> Cc: "Peter Maydell" <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, "Eduardo Habkost" <ehabkost@redhat.com>, "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" >>> <f4bug@amsat.org>, "Wainer dos Santos Moschetta" <wainersm@redhat.com>, "Laurent Vivier" <laurent@vivier.eu>, >>> "Willian Rampazzo" <wrampazz@redhat.com>, "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@redhat.com> >>> Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2019 10:43:08 AM >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Acceptance test: update kernel used on m68k/q800 test >>> >>> On 10/29/19 6:23 PM, Cleber Rosa wrote: >>>> The boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_m68k_q800 was very >>>> recently merged, but between its last review and now, the Kernel >>>> package used went missing. >>>> >>> >>> meta-question: Why was this series posted in-reply-to the pull request, >>> rather than as a new top-level thread? I nearly missed it because I >>> don't expect to see unreviewed patches buried in threading like that. >>> My workflow would have been to post the series in isolation, then >>> manually reply to the pull request to mention the message-id of the >>> related series proposed as a followup. >>> >> >> Hi Eric, >> >> That was my attempt to signal that it was a fix to something which had *just* >> being merged as part of that pull request (though now caused by it). >> >> I basically did not know how to act properly, so I thank you for the workflow >> suggestion. I'll certainly follow it next time. > > IMHO, you should send your series and then replies to the pull request > to tell you have sent your series that fixes the patch in the pull > request, or vice-versa. > > But your series has been queued by Alex, so there is no problem... I prepared a different fix around the same time, but closed my laptop before the patch was sent and noticed the next day: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-10/msg08120.html Laurent, are you OK with the new kernel being tested?
Le 07/11/2019 à 19:00, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé a écrit : > On 11/7/19 6:18 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote: >> Le 07/11/2019 à 17:38, Cleber Rosa a écrit : >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Eric Blake" <eblake@redhat.com> >>>> To: "Cleber Rosa" <crosa@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org >>>> Cc: "Peter Maydell" <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, "Eduardo Habkost" >>>> <ehabkost@redhat.com>, "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" >>>> <f4bug@amsat.org>, "Wainer dos Santos Moschetta" >>>> <wainersm@redhat.com>, "Laurent Vivier" <laurent@vivier.eu>, >>>> "Willian Rampazzo" <wrampazz@redhat.com>, "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" >>>> <philmd@redhat.com> >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2019 10:43:08 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Acceptance test: update kernel used on >>>> m68k/q800 test >>>> >>>> On 10/29/19 6:23 PM, Cleber Rosa wrote: >>>>> The boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_m68k_q800 was very >>>>> recently merged, but between its last review and now, the Kernel >>>>> package used went missing. >>>>> >>>> >>>> meta-question: Why was this series posted in-reply-to the pull request, >>>> rather than as a new top-level thread? I nearly missed it because I >>>> don't expect to see unreviewed patches buried in threading like that. >>>> My workflow would have been to post the series in isolation, then >>>> manually reply to the pull request to mention the message-id of the >>>> related series proposed as a followup. >>>> >>> >>> Hi Eric, >>> >>> That was my attempt to signal that it was a fix to something which >>> had *just* >>> being merged as part of that pull request (though now caused by it). >>> >>> I basically did not know how to act properly, so I thank you for the >>> workflow >>> suggestion. I'll certainly follow it next time. >> >> IMHO, you should send your series and then replies to the pull request >> to tell you have sent your series that fixes the patch in the pull >> request, or vice-versa. >> >> But your series has been queued by Alex, so there is no problem... > > I prepared a different fix around the same time, but closed my laptop > before the patch was sent and noticed the next day: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-10/msg08120.html > > Laurent, are you OK with the new kernel being tested? > I'm fine. We could have problems with 5.4 because the address mapping has been changed for SWIM (aee6bff1c325 "m68k: mac: Revisit floppy disc controller base addresses), but this has been fixed by my patch that has been merged today in QEMU (653901ca2b "q800: fix I/O memory map"). Thanks, Laurent