Message ID | 20211026175612.4127598-1-jsnow@redhat.com |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Switch iotests to using Async QMP | expand |
Am 26.10.2021 um 19:56 hat John Snow geschrieben: > GitLab: https://gitlab.com/jsnow/qemu/-/commits/python-aqmp-iotest-wrapper > CI: https://gitlab.com/jsnow/qemu/-/pipelines/395925703 > > Hiya, > > This series continues where the last two AQMP series left off and adds a > synchronous 'legacy' wrapper around the new AQMP interface, then drops > it straight into iotests to prove that AQMP is functional and totally > cool and fine. The disruption and churn to iotests is pretty minimal. > > In the event that a regression happens and I am not physically proximate > to inflict damage upon, one may set the QEMU_PYTHON_LEGACY_QMP variable > to any non-empty string as it pleases you to engage the QMP machinery > you are used to. I obviously haven't reviewed systematically that AQMP is actually correctly implemented and does what this series expects it to do, but treating it as a black box should be good enough for this series: Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 6:37 AM Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> wrote: > Am 26.10.2021 um 19:56 hat John Snow geschrieben: > > GitLab: > https://gitlab.com/jsnow/qemu/-/commits/python-aqmp-iotest-wrapper > > CI: https://gitlab.com/jsnow/qemu/-/pipelines/395925703 > > > > Hiya, > > > > This series continues where the last two AQMP series left off and adds a > > synchronous 'legacy' wrapper around the new AQMP interface, then drops > > it straight into iotests to prove that AQMP is functional and totally > > cool and fine. The disruption and churn to iotests is pretty minimal. > > > > In the event that a regression happens and I am not physically proximate > > to inflict damage upon, one may set the QEMU_PYTHON_LEGACY_QMP variable > > to any non-empty string as it pleases you to engage the QMP machinery > > you are used to. > > I obviously haven't reviewed systematically that AQMP is actually > correctly implemented and does what this series expects it to do, but > treating it as a black box should be good enough for this series: > > Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> > Yeah. I've tested it "a lot" and I think it should work fine, it seems to work fine in practice, there's lots of unit tests for the core transport/async bits. And worst case, we can switch it back with a single line change. Thanks! --js