On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 03:57:16PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 05:49:25PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > static void test_precopy_common(const char *listen_uri,
> > const char *connect_uri,
> > TestMigrateStartHook start_hook,
> > TestMigrateFinishHook finish_hook,
> > + bool expect_fail,
> > + bool dst_quit,
> > bool dirty_ring)
> > {
> > MigrateStart *args = migrate_start_new();
> > @@ -875,24 +890,32 @@ static void test_precopy_common(const char
> > *listen_uri,
> >
> > migrate_qmp(from, connect_uri, "{}");
> >
> > - wait_for_migration_pass(from);
> > + if (expect_fail) {
> > + wait_for_migration_fail(from, !dst_quit);
>
> Two more thoughts..
>
> (1) Shall we move MigrateStart creation to be even upper? Then we avoid
> passing over these parameters but merge these new parameters into
> MigrateStart too. After all we used to have similar long lists of
> params and we merged them into MigrateStart.
I don't to use MigrateStart as these new parameters are not common
to all migration tests. I have come up with an equivalent approach
though.
> (2) Shall we leverage MigrateStart.hide_stderr? I saw a bunch of errors
> dumped even if all things run as expected.
Yes.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
