On 04/02/2021 09.52, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
Hi Thomas,
On 1/13/21 6:30 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 12/01/2021 19.50, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta wrote:
Hi,
On 1/12/21 1:40 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
Let's gather the POWER-related tests in a separate file.
Did you consider having others ppc/ppc64 boot tests together too?
Some candidates:
tests/acceptance/boot_linux.py:BootLinuxPPC64.test_pseries_tcg
tests/acceptance/boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc64_e500
tests/acceptance/boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc_g3beige
tests/acceptance/boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc_mac99
The e500, g3beige and mac99 tests are depending on the
do_test_advcal_2018() function in that file, so I think they should
rather stay there.
tests/acceptance/ppc_prep_40p.py:IbmPrep40pMachine.test_factory_firmware_and_netbsd
tests/acceptance/ppc_prep_40p.py:IbmPrep40pMachine.test_openbios_192m
tests/acceptance/ppc_prep_40p.py:IbmPrep40pMachine.test_openbios_and_netbsd
That's a good point, I did not notice that file when writing my patches.
Philippe, since you've created this ppc_prep_40p.py file, what do you
think, should it be merged with the other ppc tests, or shall we rather
keep this separate?
The choice was deliberate: the PReP machine has a different set of
maintainers. If possible when we have a particular section in
MAINTAINERS I'd like to use it as separation, to let the maintainers
track changes in tests.
Ok, fair point, let's keep it separate then!
Thomas
