| Message ID | 20221118113309.1057790-1-alex.bennee@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [RFC] tests/avocado: use new rootfs for orangepi test | expand |
On 18/11/2022 12.33, Alex Bennée wrote: > The old URL wasn't stable. I suspect the current URL will only be > stable for a few months so maybe we need another strategy for hosting > rootfs snapshots? Looking at http://storage.kernelci.org/images/rootfs/buildroot/buildroot-baseline/ there are only images for the very last month available - so the new URL will likely be invalid in one month already. That's not usable. I think you've got to find another solution or remove the test. Thomas
On 18/11/2022 15.18, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 18/11/2022 12.33, Alex Bennée wrote: >> The old URL wasn't stable. I suspect the current URL will only be >> stable for a few months so maybe we need another strategy for hosting >> rootfs snapshots? > > Looking at > http://storage.kernelci.org/images/rootfs/buildroot/buildroot-baseline/ > there are only images for the very last month available - so the new URL > will likely be invalid in one month already. That's not usable. I think > you've got to find another solution or remove the test. Looking at that folder again, it seems there wasn't any more change within the last week ... so maybe it's not rotating so fast as I was thinking initially ... thus I guess we could give the patch a try, and if the current image finally disappears again, we still can think of a different solution. Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
On 18/11/22 12:33, Alex Bennée wrote: > The old URL wasn't stable. I suspect the current URL will only be > stable for a few months so maybe we need another strategy for hosting > rootfs snapshots? > > Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> > --- > tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py b/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py > index 4c9d551f47..5a2923c423 100644 > --- a/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py > +++ b/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py > @@ -793,8 +793,8 @@ def test_arm_orangepi_sd(self): > dtb_path = '/usr/lib/linux-image-current-sunxi/sun8i-h3-orangepi-pc.dtb' > dtb_path = self.extract_from_deb(deb_path, dtb_path) > rootfs_url = ('http://storage.kernelci.org/images/rootfs/buildroot/' > - 'kci-2019.02/armel/base/rootfs.ext2.xz') > - rootfs_hash = '692510cb625efda31640d1de0a8d60e26040f061' > + 'buildroot-baseline/20221116.0/armel/rootfs.ext2.xz') > + rootfs_hash = 'fae32f337c7b87547b10f42599acf109da8b6d9a' If Avocado doesn't find an artifact in its local cache, it will fetch it from the URL. The cache might be populated with artifacts previously downloaded, but their URL is not valid anymore (my case for many tests). We can also add artifacts manually, see [1]. I'd rather keep pre-existing tests if possible, to test older (kernel / user-space) images. We don't need to run all the tests all the time: tests can be filtered by tags (see [2]). My preference here is to refactor this test, adding the "kci-2019.02" and "baseline-20221116.0" releases. I can prepare the patch if you / Thomas don't object. Regards, Phil. [1] https://avocado-framework.readthedocs.io/en/latest/guides/user/chapters/assets.html#registering-assets [2] https://avocado-framework.readthedocs.io/en/latest/guides/user/chapters/tags.html#filtering-tests-by-tags
On 23/11/2022 12.15, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 18/11/22 12:33, Alex Bennée wrote: >> The old URL wasn't stable. I suspect the current URL will only be >> stable for a few months so maybe we need another strategy for hosting >> rootfs snapshots? >> >> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> >> --- >> tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py >> b/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py >> index 4c9d551f47..5a2923c423 100644 >> --- a/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py >> +++ b/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py >> @@ -793,8 +793,8 @@ def test_arm_orangepi_sd(self): >> dtb_path = >> '/usr/lib/linux-image-current-sunxi/sun8i-h3-orangepi-pc.dtb' >> dtb_path = self.extract_from_deb(deb_path, dtb_path) >> rootfs_url = >> ('http://storage.kernelci.org/images/rootfs/buildroot/' >> - 'kci-2019.02/armel/base/rootfs.ext2.xz') >> - rootfs_hash = '692510cb625efda31640d1de0a8d60e26040f061' >> + 'buildroot-baseline/20221116.0/armel/rootfs.ext2.xz') >> + rootfs_hash = 'fae32f337c7b87547b10f42599acf109da8b6d9a' > If Avocado doesn't find an artifact in its local cache, it will fetch it > from the URL. > The cache might be populated with artifacts previously downloaded, but > their URL is not valid anymore (my case for many tests). > We can also add artifacts manually, see [1]. > > I'd rather keep pre-existing tests if possible, to test older (kernel / > user-space) images. We don't need to run all the tests all the time: > tests can be filtered by tags (see [2]). > > My preference here is to refactor this test, adding the "kci-2019.02" > and "baseline-20221116.0" releases. I can prepare the patch if you / > Thomas don't object. IMHO we shouldn't keep tests in the upstream git repository where the binaries are not available in public anymore. They won't get run by new contributors anymore, and also could vanish from the disks of the people who previously downloaded it, once they wipe their cache or upgrade to a new installation, so the test code will sooner or later be bitrotting. But if you want to keep the tests around on your hard disk, you could also stick the test in a local branch on your hard disk instead. The other possibility is to upload the binaries to a new public location in the web ... but for software that contains GPLed software, you should then also make sure to provide the source code to comply with the license. Thomas
Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes: > On 23/11/2022 12.15, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >> On 18/11/22 12:33, Alex Bennée wrote: >>> The old URL wasn't stable. I suspect the current URL will only be >>> stable for a few months so maybe we need another strategy for hosting >>> rootfs snapshots? >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> >>> --- >>> tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py | 4 ++-- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py >>> b/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py >>> index 4c9d551f47..5a2923c423 100644 >>> --- a/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py >>> +++ b/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py >>> @@ -793,8 +793,8 @@ def test_arm_orangepi_sd(self): >>> dtb_path = >>> '/usr/lib/linux-image-current-sunxi/sun8i-h3-orangepi-pc.dtb' >>> dtb_path = self.extract_from_deb(deb_path, dtb_path) >>> rootfs_url = >>> ('http://storage.kernelci.org/images/rootfs/buildroot/' >>> - 'kci-2019.02/armel/base/rootfs.ext2.xz') >>> - rootfs_hash = '692510cb625efda31640d1de0a8d60e26040f061' >>> + 'buildroot-baseline/20221116.0/armel/rootfs.ext2.xz') >>> + rootfs_hash = 'fae32f337c7b87547b10f42599acf109da8b6d9a' >> If Avocado doesn't find an artifact in its local cache, it will fetch it >> from the URL. >> The cache might be populated with artifacts previously downloaded, but >> their URL is not valid anymore (my case for many tests). >> We can also add artifacts manually, see [1]. >> I'd rather keep pre-existing tests if possible, to test older >> (kernel / user-space) images. We don't need to run all the tests all >> the time: >> tests can be filtered by tags (see [2]). >> My preference here is to refactor this test, adding the >> "kci-2019.02" >> and "baseline-20221116.0" releases. I can prepare the patch if you / >> Thomas don't object. > > IMHO we shouldn't keep tests in the upstream git repository where the > binaries are not available in public anymore. They won't get run by > new contributors anymore, and also could vanish from the disks of the > people who previously downloaded it, once they wipe their cache or > upgrade to a new installation, so the test code will sooner or later > be bitrotting. But if you want to keep the tests around on your hard > disk, you could also stick the test in a local branch on your hard > disk instead. CI/Workstation splits aside I tend to agree with Thomas here that having tests no one else can run will lead to an accretion of broken tests. Given the tests themselves are standalone couldn't the prospective test hoarder keep their own personal repository to be run with the rest of the in-tree code, something like: cd my/test/zoo/repo $(QEMU_BUILD)/tests/venv/bin/avocado run my_test_zoo.py for convenience we could maybe support an env variable so the existing test selection tags would work: set -x QEMU_AVOCADO_EXTRA_TESTS /my/test/zoo/repo ./tests/venv/bin/avocado list ... <list all tests in qemu src tree and extra> ... ? > The other possibility is to upload the binaries to a new public > location in the web ... but for software that contains GPLed software, > you should then also make sure to provide the source code to comply > with the license. This is the traditional reason we've lent so hard on external hosting for binaries because the upstream doesn't want the hassle of maintaining that sort of zoo of binaries. That said we have tests where binaries are served from fileserver.linaro.org but its then only my problem to deal with GPL requirements and not the upstream.
On 23/11/22 15:12, Alex Bennée wrote: > Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes: >> On 23/11/2022 12.15, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>> On 18/11/22 12:33, Alex Bennée wrote: >>>> The old URL wasn't stable. I suspect the current URL will only be >>>> stable for a few months so maybe we need another strategy for hosting >>>> rootfs snapshots? >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> >>>> --- >>>> tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py | 4 ++-- >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py >>>> b/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py >>>> index 4c9d551f47..5a2923c423 100644 >>>> --- a/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py >>>> +++ b/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py >>>> @@ -793,8 +793,8 @@ def test_arm_orangepi_sd(self): >>>> dtb_path = >>>> '/usr/lib/linux-image-current-sunxi/sun8i-h3-orangepi-pc.dtb' >>>> dtb_path = self.extract_from_deb(deb_path, dtb_path) >>>> rootfs_url = >>>> ('http://storage.kernelci.org/images/rootfs/buildroot/' >>>> - 'kci-2019.02/armel/base/rootfs.ext2.xz') >>>> - rootfs_hash = '692510cb625efda31640d1de0a8d60e26040f061' >>>> + 'buildroot-baseline/20221116.0/armel/rootfs.ext2.xz') >>>> + rootfs_hash = 'fae32f337c7b87547b10f42599acf109da8b6d9a' >>> If Avocado doesn't find an artifact in its local cache, it will fetch it >>> from the URL. >>> The cache might be populated with artifacts previously downloaded, but >>> their URL is not valid anymore (my case for many tests). >>> We can also add artifacts manually, see [1]. >>> I'd rather keep pre-existing tests if possible, to test older >>> (kernel / user-space) images. We don't need to run all the tests all >>> the time: >>> tests can be filtered by tags (see [2]). >>> My preference here is to refactor this test, adding the >>> "kci-2019.02" >>> and "baseline-20221116.0" releases. I can prepare the patch if you / >>> Thomas don't object. >> >> IMHO we shouldn't keep tests in the upstream git repository where the >> binaries are not available in public anymore. They won't get run by >> new contributors anymore, and also could vanish from the disks of the >> people who previously downloaded it, once they wipe their cache or >> upgrade to a new installation, so the test code will sooner or later >> be bitrotting. But if you want to keep the tests around on your hard >> disk, you could also stick the test in a local branch on your hard >> disk instead. > > CI/Workstation splits aside I tend to agree with Thomas here that having > tests no one else can run will lead to an accretion of broken tests. Following this idea, should we remove all boards for which no open source & GPL software is available? I.e: 40p IBM RS/6000 7020 (40p) akita Sharp SL-C1000 (Akita) PDA (PXA270) midway Calxeda Midway (ECX-2000) terrier Sharp SL-C3200 (Terrier) PDA (PXA270) tosa Sharp SL-6000 (Tosa) PDA (PXA255) > Given the tests themselves are standalone couldn't the prospective test > hoarder keep their own personal repository to be run with the rest of the > in-tree code, something like: > > cd my/test/zoo/repo > $(QEMU_BUILD)/tests/venv/bin/avocado run my_test_zoo.py > > for convenience we could maybe support an env variable so the existing > test selection tags would work: > > set -x QEMU_AVOCADO_EXTRA_TESTS /my/test/zoo/repo > ./tests/venv/bin/avocado list > ... > <list all tests in qemu src tree and extra> > ... > > ? Yes, this is what we use to test the Fuloong2E: $ git grep RESCUE_YL_PATH tests/avocado/ tests/avocado/machine_mips_fuloong2e.py:21: @skipUnless(os.getenv('RESCUE_YL_PATH'), 'RESCUE_YL_PATH not available') tests/avocado/machine_mips_fuloong2e.py:34: kernel_path = self.fetch_asset('file://' + os.getenv('RESCUE_YL_PATH'), The firmware is not open source / GPL but if you have a Fuloong2E board you can dump it from the flash, then use it to test QEMU from hard reset up to userland. Otherwise you are forced to use the -kernel argument. >> The other possibility is to upload the binaries to a new public >> location in the web ... but for software that contains GPLed software, >> you should then also make sure to provide the source code to comply >> with the license. > > This is the traditional reason we've lent so hard on external hosting > for binaries because the upstream doesn't want the hassle of maintaining > that sort of zoo of binaries. That said we have tests where binaries are > served from fileserver.linaro.org but its then only my problem to deal > with GPL requirements and not the upstream. Maybe we are discussing 2 different topics. I am in possession of old Solaris installation CDROMs and could boot some of them with qemu-system-sparc. I want to automatize my testing, and wrote Avocado scripts doing that. I suppose other QEMU users have similar CDROMs. If I contribute my tests, they can run them. Isn't it in the interest of the community to have such examples and tests available? Regards, Phil.
On 11/23/22 19:13, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 23/11/22 15:12, Alex Bennée wrote: >> Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes: >>> On 23/11/2022 12.15, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>>> On 18/11/22 12:33, Alex Bennée wrote: >>>>> The old URL wasn't stable. I suspect the current URL will only be >>>>> stable for a few months so maybe we need another strategy for hosting >>>>> rootfs snapshots? >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> >>>>> --- >>>>> tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py | 4 ++-- >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py >>>>> b/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py >>>>> index 4c9d551f47..5a2923c423 100644 >>>>> --- a/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py >>>>> +++ b/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py >>>>> @@ -793,8 +793,8 @@ def test_arm_orangepi_sd(self): >>>>> dtb_path = >>>>> '/usr/lib/linux-image-current-sunxi/sun8i-h3-orangepi-pc.dtb' >>>>> dtb_path = self.extract_from_deb(deb_path, dtb_path) >>>>> rootfs_url = >>>>> ('http://storage.kernelci.org/images/rootfs/buildroot/' >>>>> - 'kci-2019.02/armel/base/rootfs.ext2.xz') >>>>> - rootfs_hash = '692510cb625efda31640d1de0a8d60e26040f061' >>>>> + 'buildroot-baseline/20221116.0/armel/rootfs.ext2.xz') >>>>> + rootfs_hash = 'fae32f337c7b87547b10f42599acf109da8b6d9a' >>>> If Avocado doesn't find an artifact in its local cache, it will fetch it >>>> from the URL. >>>> The cache might be populated with artifacts previously downloaded, but >>>> their URL is not valid anymore (my case for many tests). >>>> We can also add artifacts manually, see [1]. >>>> I'd rather keep pre-existing tests if possible, to test older >>>> (kernel / user-space) images. We don't need to run all the tests all >>>> the time: >>>> tests can be filtered by tags (see [2]). >>>> My preference here is to refactor this test, adding the >>>> "kci-2019.02" >>>> and "baseline-20221116.0" releases. I can prepare the patch if you / >>>> Thomas don't object. >>> >>> IMHO we shouldn't keep tests in the upstream git repository where the >>> binaries are not available in public anymore. They won't get run by >>> new contributors anymore, and also could vanish from the disks of the >>> people who previously downloaded it, once they wipe their cache or >>> upgrade to a new installation, so the test code will sooner or later >>> be bitrotting. But if you want to keep the tests around on your hard >>> disk, you could also stick the test in a local branch on your hard >>> disk instead. >> >> CI/Workstation splits aside I tend to agree with Thomas here that having >> tests no one else can run will lead to an accretion of broken tests. > > Following this idea, should we remove all boards for which no open > source & GPL software is available? I.e: > > 40p IBM RS/6000 7020 (40p) This machine can run debian : qemu-system-ppc -M 40p -cpu 604 -nic user -hda ./prep.qcow2 -cdrom ./zImage.hdd -serial mon:stdio -nographic >> ============================================================= >> OpenBIOS 1.1 [Mar 7 2022 23:07] >> Configuration device id QEMU version 1 machine id 0 >> CPUs: 0 >> Memory: 128M >> UUID: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 >> CPU type PowerPC,604 milliseconds isn't unique. Welcome to OpenBIOS v1.1 built on Mar 7 2022 23:07 Trying hd:,\\:tbxi... >> Not a bootable ELF image >> switching to new context: loaded at: 04000400 04015218 relocated to: 00800000 00814E18 board data at: 07C9E870 07CA527C relocated to: 0080B130 00811B3C zimage at: 0400B400 0411DC98 avail ram: 00400000 00800000 Linux/PPC load: console=/dev/ttyS0,9600 console=tty0 ether=5,0x210,eth0 ether=11,0x300,eth1 ramdisk_size=8192 root=/dev/sda3 Uncompressing Linux................................................done. Now booting the kernel Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 6015 ttyS0 6015 login: Please keep it ! :) and it also boots AIX 4.4/5.1 (with 2 small patches) but that's clearly not open source. It is downloadable from the net though, like many macos PPC images. That said, we might have been putting too much in avocado and it takes ages to run (when it does not hit some random python issue). > akita Sharp SL-C1000 (Akita) PDA (PXA270) > midway Calxeda Midway (ECX-2000) > terrier Sharp SL-C3200 (Terrier) PDA (PXA270) > tosa Sharp SL-6000 (Tosa) PDA (PXA255) > >> Given the tests themselves are standalone couldn't the prospective test >> hoarder keep their own personal repository to be run with the rest of the >> in-tree code, something like: >> >> cd my/test/zoo/repo >> $(QEMU_BUILD)/tests/venv/bin/avocado run my_test_zoo.py >> >> for convenience we could maybe support an env variable so the existing >> test selection tags would work: >> >> set -x QEMU_AVOCADO_EXTRA_TESTS /my/test/zoo/repo >> ./tests/venv/bin/avocado list >> ... >> <list all tests in qemu src tree and extra> >> ... >> >> ? > > Yes, this is what we use to test the Fuloong2E: > > $ git grep RESCUE_YL_PATH tests/avocado/ > tests/avocado/machine_mips_fuloong2e.py:21: @skipUnless(os.getenv('RESCUE_YL_PATH'), 'RESCUE_YL_PATH not available') > tests/avocado/machine_mips_fuloong2e.py:34: kernel_path = self.fetch_asset('file://' + os.getenv('RESCUE_YL_PATH'), > > The firmware is not open source / GPL but if you have a Fuloong2E board > you can dump it from the flash, then use it to test QEMU from hard reset > up to userland. Otherwise you are forced to use the -kernel argument. > >>> The other possibility is to upload the binaries to a new public >>> location in the web ... but for software that contains GPLed software, >>> you should then also make sure to provide the source code to comply >>> with the license. >> >> This is the traditional reason we've lent so hard on external hosting >> for binaries because the upstream doesn't want the hassle of maintaining >> that sort of zoo of binaries. That said we have tests where binaries are >> served from fileserver.linaro.org but its then only my problem to deal >> with GPL requirements and not the upstream. > > Maybe we are discussing 2 different topics. I am in possession of > old Solaris installation CDROMs and could boot some of them with > qemu-system-sparc. I want to automatize my testing, and wrote Avocado > scripts doing that. I suppose other QEMU users have similar CDROMs. > If I contribute my tests, they can run them. Isn't it in the interest > of the community to have such examples and tests available? I think so. Is it time to move some of the tests (and images) in an external tree ? That would be one way to keep them available for all. I like qemu-zoo. It would certainly require some legal advice. C. > > Regards, > > Phil. >
On 23/11/22 19:49, Cédric Le Goater wrote: > On 11/23/22 19:13, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >> On 23/11/22 15:12, Alex Bennée wrote: >>> Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes: >>>> On 23/11/2022 12.15, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>>>> On 18/11/22 12:33, Alex Bennée wrote: >>>>>> The old URL wasn't stable. I suspect the current URL will only be >>>>>> stable for a few months so maybe we need another strategy for hosting >>>>>> rootfs snapshots? >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py | 4 ++-- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py >>>>>> b/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py >>>>>> index 4c9d551f47..5a2923c423 100644 >>>>>> --- a/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py >>>>>> +++ b/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py >>>>>> @@ -793,8 +793,8 @@ def test_arm_orangepi_sd(self): >>>>>> dtb_path = >>>>>> '/usr/lib/linux-image-current-sunxi/sun8i-h3-orangepi-pc.dtb' >>>>>> dtb_path = self.extract_from_deb(deb_path, dtb_path) >>>>>> rootfs_url = >>>>>> ('http://storage.kernelci.org/images/rootfs/buildroot/' >>>>>> - 'kci-2019.02/armel/base/rootfs.ext2.xz') >>>>>> - rootfs_hash = '692510cb625efda31640d1de0a8d60e26040f061' >>>>>> + >>>>>> 'buildroot-baseline/20221116.0/armel/rootfs.ext2.xz') >>>>>> + rootfs_hash = 'fae32f337c7b87547b10f42599acf109da8b6d9a' >>>>> If Avocado doesn't find an artifact in its local cache, it will >>>>> fetch it >>>>> from the URL. >>>>> The cache might be populated with artifacts previously downloaded, but >>>>> their URL is not valid anymore (my case for many tests). >>>>> We can also add artifacts manually, see [1]. >>>>> I'd rather keep pre-existing tests if possible, to test older >>>>> (kernel / user-space) images. We don't need to run all the tests all >>>>> the time: >>>>> tests can be filtered by tags (see [2]). >>>>> My preference here is to refactor this test, adding the >>>>> "kci-2019.02" >>>>> and "baseline-20221116.0" releases. I can prepare the patch if you / >>>>> Thomas don't object. >>>> >>>> IMHO we shouldn't keep tests in the upstream git repository where the >>>> binaries are not available in public anymore. They won't get run by >>>> new contributors anymore, and also could vanish from the disks of the >>>> people who previously downloaded it, once they wipe their cache or >>>> upgrade to a new installation, so the test code will sooner or later >>>> be bitrotting. But if you want to keep the tests around on your hard >>>> disk, you could also stick the test in a local branch on your hard >>>> disk instead. >>> >>> CI/Workstation splits aside I tend to agree with Thomas here that having >>> tests no one else can run will lead to an accretion of broken tests. >> >> Following this idea, should we remove all boards for which no open >> source & GPL software is available? I.e: >> >> 40p IBM RS/6000 7020 (40p) > > This machine can run debian : IMHO having QEMU able to run anything an architecture can run seems way more interesting/helpful rather than restricting it to just open source projects. > qemu-system-ppc -M 40p -cpu 604 -nic user -hda ./prep.qcow2 -cdrom > ./zImage.hdd -serial mon:stdio -nographic > >> ============================================================= > >> OpenBIOS 1.1 [Mar 7 2022 23:07] > >> Configuration device id QEMU version 1 machine id 0 > >> CPUs: 0 > >> Memory: 128M > >> UUID: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 > >> CPU type PowerPC,604 > milliseconds isn't unique. > Welcome to OpenBIOS v1.1 built on Mar 7 2022 23:07 > Trying hd:,\\:tbxi... > >> Not a bootable ELF image > >> switching to new context: > loaded at: 04000400 04015218 > relocated to: 00800000 00814E18 > board data at: 07C9E870 07CA527C > relocated to: 0080B130 00811B3C > zimage at: 0400B400 0411DC98 > avail ram: 00400000 00800000 > Linux/PPC load: console=/dev/ttyS0,9600 console=tty0 > ether=5,0x210,eth0 ether=11,0x300,eth1 ramdisk_size=8192 root=/dev/sda3 > Uncompressing Linux................................................done. > Now booting the kernel > Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 6015 ttyS0 > 6015 login: > > Please keep it ! :) > > and it also boots AIX 4.4/5.1 (with 2 small patches) but that's clearly > not open source. It is downloadable from the net though, like many macos > PPC images. > > That said, we might have been putting too much in avocado and it takes > ages to run (when it does not hit some random python issue). w.r.t. "too much in avocado", are you referring to GitLab CI? I see the following 2 use cases with Avocado: 1/ Run tests locally 2/ Run tests on CI The set of tests used in 1/ and 2/ doesn't have to be the same... 1/ is very helpful for maintainers, to run tests specific to their subsystems. Also useful during refactor when touching other subsystems, to run their tests before sending a patch set. 2/ is the "gating" testing. With retrospective, it was a mistake to start running avocado on CI without any filtering on what tests to run. Instead of trying to explain my view here, I'd like to go back to Daniel earlier proposal: https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20200427152036.GI1244803@redhat.com/ Per this proposal, we should only run 'Tier 1' on Gitlab CI. Daniel described "Tier 1" as "[test that] Will always work." I'd like to amend with "test that run in less than 150 seconds" (or less). If a test takes more, we can run it on our workstations, but we shouldn't waste CI cycles with it. I plan to post a series converting our current Avocado "opt-out" use: @skipIf(os.getenv('GITLAB_CI'), 'Running on GitLab') to and "opt-in" one using the 'gating-ci-tier:1' Avocado tag. (if curious: https://gitlab.com/philmd/qemu/-/commits/gci_tier1_optin/) >>> Given the tests themselves are standalone couldn't the prospective test >>> hoarder keep their own personal repository to be run with the rest of >>> the >>> in-tree code, something like: >>> >>> cd my/test/zoo/repo >>> $(QEMU_BUILD)/tests/venv/bin/avocado run my_test_zoo.py >>> >>> for convenience we could maybe support an env variable so the existing >>> test selection tags would work: >>> >>> set -x QEMU_AVOCADO_EXTRA_TESTS /my/test/zoo/repo >>> ./tests/venv/bin/avocado list >>> ... >>> <list all tests in qemu src tree and extra> >>> ... >>> >>> ? >> >> Yes, this is what we use to test the Fuloong2E: >> >> $ git grep RESCUE_YL_PATH tests/avocado/ >> tests/avocado/machine_mips_fuloong2e.py:21: >> @skipUnless(os.getenv('RESCUE_YL_PATH'), 'RESCUE_YL_PATH not available') >> tests/avocado/machine_mips_fuloong2e.py:34: kernel_path = >> self.fetch_asset('file://' + os.getenv('RESCUE_YL_PATH'), >> >> The firmware is not open source / GPL but if you have a Fuloong2E board >> you can dump it from the flash, then use it to test QEMU from hard reset >> up to userland. Otherwise you are forced to use the -kernel argument. >> >>>> The other possibility is to upload the binaries to a new public >>>> location in the web ... but for software that contains GPLed software, >>>> you should then also make sure to provide the source code to comply >>>> with the license. >>> >>> This is the traditional reason we've lent so hard on external hosting >>> for binaries because the upstream doesn't want the hassle of maintaining >>> that sort of zoo of binaries. That said we have tests where binaries are >>> served from fileserver.linaro.org but its then only my problem to deal >>> with GPL requirements and not the upstream. >> >> Maybe we are discussing 2 different topics. I am in possession of >> old Solaris installation CDROMs and could boot some of them with >> qemu-system-sparc. I want to automatize my testing, and wrote Avocado >> scripts doing that. I suppose other QEMU users have similar CDROMs. >> If I contribute my tests, they can run them. Isn't it in the interest >> of the community to have such examples and tests available? > > I think so. > > Is it time to move some of the tests (and images) in an external tree ? > That would be one way to keep them available for all. I like qemu-zoo. > > It would certainly require some legal advice. > > > C. > > >> >> Regards, >> >> Phil. >> >
On 23/11/2022 19.13, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 23/11/22 15:12, Alex Bennée wrote: >> Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes: >>> On 23/11/2022 12.15, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>>> On 18/11/22 12:33, Alex Bennée wrote: >>>>> The old URL wasn't stable. I suspect the current URL will only be >>>>> stable for a few months so maybe we need another strategy for hosting >>>>> rootfs snapshots? >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> >>>>> --- >>>>> tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py | 4 ++-- >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py >>>>> b/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py >>>>> index 4c9d551f47..5a2923c423 100644 >>>>> --- a/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py >>>>> +++ b/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py >>>>> @@ -793,8 +793,8 @@ def test_arm_orangepi_sd(self): >>>>> dtb_path = >>>>> '/usr/lib/linux-image-current-sunxi/sun8i-h3-orangepi-pc.dtb' >>>>> dtb_path = self.extract_from_deb(deb_path, dtb_path) >>>>> rootfs_url = >>>>> ('http://storage.kernelci.org/images/rootfs/buildroot/' >>>>> - 'kci-2019.02/armel/base/rootfs.ext2.xz') >>>>> - rootfs_hash = '692510cb625efda31640d1de0a8d60e26040f061' >>>>> + >>>>> 'buildroot-baseline/20221116.0/armel/rootfs.ext2.xz') >>>>> + rootfs_hash = 'fae32f337c7b87547b10f42599acf109da8b6d9a' >>>> If Avocado doesn't find an artifact in its local cache, it will fetch it >>>> from the URL. >>>> The cache might be populated with artifacts previously downloaded, but >>>> their URL is not valid anymore (my case for many tests). >>>> We can also add artifacts manually, see [1]. >>>> I'd rather keep pre-existing tests if possible, to test older >>>> (kernel / user-space) images. We don't need to run all the tests all >>>> the time: >>>> tests can be filtered by tags (see [2]). >>>> My preference here is to refactor this test, adding the >>>> "kci-2019.02" >>>> and "baseline-20221116.0" releases. I can prepare the patch if you / >>>> Thomas don't object. >>> >>> IMHO we shouldn't keep tests in the upstream git repository where the >>> binaries are not available in public anymore. They won't get run by >>> new contributors anymore, and also could vanish from the disks of the >>> people who previously downloaded it, once they wipe their cache or >>> upgrade to a new installation, so the test code will sooner or later >>> be bitrotting. But if you want to keep the tests around on your hard >>> disk, you could also stick the test in a local branch on your hard >>> disk instead. >> >> CI/Workstation splits aside I tend to agree with Thomas here that having >> tests no one else can run will lead to an accretion of broken tests. > > Following this idea, should we remove all boards for which no open > source & GPL software is available? That's certainly a different topic... but I see where you're heading to. My point here is rather: There is an alternative, newer version of the kernel available which can be used to test the same thing. The older version disappeared from the net, so why should we bother trying to keep that test with that version supported if there is a newer version available? And for things like firmware images and ISOs, some people still have the hardware and CD-ROMs around, or you could buy them second hand, so there is indeed a point in having tests for such systems. But for this old kernel here? How is somebody supposed to run the test if they didn't download it before it disappeared? If you feel that there is really a benefit for keeping it around, then fine, please submit a patch that restores the test with the old kernel. But then please also add a comment how to get the kernel if necessary. ... well, maybe we just need an owner for the test ... thinking about it twice, I think that's what bothered me most about this: It's a test in boot_linux_console.py so there is no clear maintainer who could be asked about it if it bitrots when the binary is not available. Thus please put it into a different file with an entry in MAINTAINERS if you restore it. So maybe the rule should be: Tests with files that are not publicly available in the internet are OK if they have a clear maintainer who could be asked about the state if necessary. Tests without available files and without maintainer are just too prone to bitrot in the future. Thomas
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 07:13:09PM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 23/11/22 15:12, Alex Bennée wrote: > > Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes: > > > On 23/11/2022 12.15, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > > > On 18/11/22 12:33, Alex Bennée wrote: > > > > > The old URL wasn't stable. I suspect the current URL will only be > > > > > stable for a few months so maybe we need another strategy for hosting > > > > > rootfs snapshots? > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> > > > > > --- > > > > > tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py | 4 ++-- > > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py > > > > > b/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py > > > > > index 4c9d551f47..5a2923c423 100644 > > > > > --- a/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py > > > > > +++ b/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py > > > > > @@ -793,8 +793,8 @@ def test_arm_orangepi_sd(self): > > > > > dtb_path = > > > > > '/usr/lib/linux-image-current-sunxi/sun8i-h3-orangepi-pc.dtb' > > > > > dtb_path = self.extract_from_deb(deb_path, dtb_path) > > > > > rootfs_url = > > > > > ('http://storage.kernelci.org/images/rootfs/buildroot/' > > > > > - 'kci-2019.02/armel/base/rootfs.ext2.xz') > > > > > - rootfs_hash = '692510cb625efda31640d1de0a8d60e26040f061' > > > > > + 'buildroot-baseline/20221116.0/armel/rootfs.ext2.xz') > > > > > + rootfs_hash = 'fae32f337c7b87547b10f42599acf109da8b6d9a' > > > > If Avocado doesn't find an artifact in its local cache, it will fetch it > > > > from the URL. > > > > The cache might be populated with artifacts previously downloaded, but > > > > their URL is not valid anymore (my case for many tests). > > > > We can also add artifacts manually, see [1]. > > > > I'd rather keep pre-existing tests if possible, to test older > > > > (kernel / user-space) images. We don't need to run all the tests all > > > > the time: > > > > tests can be filtered by tags (see [2]). > > > > My preference here is to refactor this test, adding the > > > > "kci-2019.02" > > > > and "baseline-20221116.0" releases. I can prepare the patch if you / > > > > Thomas don't object. > > > > > > IMHO we shouldn't keep tests in the upstream git repository where the > > > binaries are not available in public anymore. They won't get run by > > > new contributors anymore, and also could vanish from the disks of the > > > people who previously downloaded it, once they wipe their cache or > > > upgrade to a new installation, so the test code will sooner or later > > > be bitrotting. But if you want to keep the tests around on your hard > > > disk, you could also stick the test in a local branch on your hard > > > disk instead. > > > > CI/Workstation splits aside I tend to agree with Thomas here that having > > tests no one else can run will lead to an accretion of broken tests. > > Following this idea, should we remove all boards for which no open > source & GPL software is available? I.e: No of course not, that's totally ridiculous. Don't equate what scenarios we cover in CI, with what features QEMU implements in code. The CI coverage merely influences what we tell people about the level of quality we can guarantee for respective features. > > > The other possibility is to upload the binaries to a new public > > > location in the web ... but for software that contains GPLed software, > > > you should then also make sure to provide the source code to comply > > > with the license. > > > > This is the traditional reason we've lent so hard on external hosting > > for binaries because the upstream doesn't want the hassle of maintaining > > that sort of zoo of binaries. That said we have tests where binaries are > > served from fileserver.linaro.org but its then only my problem to deal > > with GPL requirements and not the upstream. > > Maybe we are discussing 2 different topics. I am in possession of > old Solaris installation CDROMs and could boot some of them with > qemu-system-sparc. I want to automatize my testing, and wrote Avocado > scripts doing that. I suppose other QEMU users have similar CDROMs. > If I contribute my tests, they can run them. Isn't it in the interest > of the community to have such examples and tests available? Potentially yes, but remember that all code has a maintenance cost, and we're massively struggling to keep even our current avocado setup running reliably. The CI for Avocado is in a state of almost constant brokeness throughout recent merges :-( Given the instability and time invested chasing failures in current tests we have, I don't think we can commit to adding arbitrary user contributed tests to our gating CI. I think we need to strictly focus our Avocado gating CI testing on a small set of OS that give maximum value for our usersr. IMHO that means primarily focus testing resources on modern non-EOL OS distros and hardware platforms. We could take tests for other old OS / old hardware platforms and NOT run them in CI, but then they're at even greater risk of bitrotting than the stuff we already struggle to keep running. With regards, Daniel
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 09:20:36AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 23/11/2022 19.13, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > On 23/11/22 15:12, Alex Bennée wrote: > > > Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes: > > > > On 23/11/2022 12.15, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > > > > On 18/11/22 12:33, Alex Bennée wrote: > > > > > > The old URL wasn't stable. I suspect the current URL will only be > > > > > > stable for a few months so maybe we need another strategy for hosting > > > > > > rootfs snapshots? > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py | 4 ++-- > > > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py > > > > > > b/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py > > > > > > index 4c9d551f47..5a2923c423 100644 > > > > > > --- a/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py > > > > > > +++ b/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py > > > > > > @@ -793,8 +793,8 @@ def test_arm_orangepi_sd(self): > > > > > > dtb_path = > > > > > > '/usr/lib/linux-image-current-sunxi/sun8i-h3-orangepi-pc.dtb' > > > > > > dtb_path = self.extract_from_deb(deb_path, dtb_path) > > > > > > rootfs_url = > > > > > > ('http://storage.kernelci.org/images/rootfs/buildroot/' > > > > > > - 'kci-2019.02/armel/base/rootfs.ext2.xz') > > > > > > - rootfs_hash = '692510cb625efda31640d1de0a8d60e26040f061' > > > > > > + > > > > > > 'buildroot-baseline/20221116.0/armel/rootfs.ext2.xz') > > > > > > + rootfs_hash = 'fae32f337c7b87547b10f42599acf109da8b6d9a' > > > > > If Avocado doesn't find an artifact in its local cache, it will fetch it > > > > > from the URL. > > > > > The cache might be populated with artifacts previously downloaded, but > > > > > their URL is not valid anymore (my case for many tests). > > > > > We can also add artifacts manually, see [1]. > > > > > I'd rather keep pre-existing tests if possible, to test older > > > > > (kernel / user-space) images. We don't need to run all the tests all > > > > > the time: > > > > > tests can be filtered by tags (see [2]). > > > > > My preference here is to refactor this test, adding the > > > > > "kci-2019.02" > > > > > and "baseline-20221116.0" releases. I can prepare the patch if you / > > > > > Thomas don't object. > > > > > > > > IMHO we shouldn't keep tests in the upstream git repository where the > > > > binaries are not available in public anymore. They won't get run by > > > > new contributors anymore, and also could vanish from the disks of the > > > > people who previously downloaded it, once they wipe their cache or > > > > upgrade to a new installation, so the test code will sooner or later > > > > be bitrotting. But if you want to keep the tests around on your hard > > > > disk, you could also stick the test in a local branch on your hard > > > > disk instead. > > > > > > CI/Workstation splits aside I tend to agree with Thomas here that having > > > tests no one else can run will lead to an accretion of broken tests. > > > > Following this idea, should we remove all boards for which no open > > source & GPL software is available? > > That's certainly a different topic... but I see where you're heading to. > > My point here is rather: There is an alternative, newer version of the > kernel available which can be used to test the same thing. The older version > disappeared from the net, so why should we bother trying to keep that test > with that version supported if there is a newer version available? In the ideal world we would test a representative sample of OS across a wide vintage of years. The real world though, we're massively struggling to keep avocado running reliably, and so don't have resources to achieve ideal testing coverage. We need to aggressively restrict our focus to testing that maximises the value for our userbase. I think that means focusing on modern non-EOL operating systems. So yes, if an old image disappears, cull it from testing and put something new in its place that is more likely to actually be used by our userbase. With regards, Daniel
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 12:06:10AM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 23/11/22 19:49, Cédric Le Goater wrote: > > On 11/23/22 19:13, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > > On 23/11/22 15:12, Alex Bennée wrote: > > > > Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes: > > > > > On 23/11/2022 12.15, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > > > > > On 18/11/22 12:33, Alex Bennée wrote: > > > > > > > The old URL wasn't stable. I suspect the current URL will only be > > > > > > > stable for a few months so maybe we need another strategy for hosting > > > > > > > rootfs snapshots? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py | 4 ++-- > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py > > > > > > > b/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py > > > > > > > index 4c9d551f47..5a2923c423 100644 > > > > > > > --- a/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py > > > > > > > +++ b/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py > > > > > > > @@ -793,8 +793,8 @@ def test_arm_orangepi_sd(self): > > > > > > > dtb_path = > > > > > > > '/usr/lib/linux-image-current-sunxi/sun8i-h3-orangepi-pc.dtb' > > > > > > > dtb_path = self.extract_from_deb(deb_path, dtb_path) > > > > > > > rootfs_url = > > > > > > > ('http://storage.kernelci.org/images/rootfs/buildroot/' > > > > > > > - 'kci-2019.02/armel/base/rootfs.ext2.xz') > > > > > > > - rootfs_hash = '692510cb625efda31640d1de0a8d60e26040f061' > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > 'buildroot-baseline/20221116.0/armel/rootfs.ext2.xz') > > > > > > > + rootfs_hash = 'fae32f337c7b87547b10f42599acf109da8b6d9a' > > > > > > If Avocado doesn't find an artifact in its local cache, > > > > > > it will fetch it > > > > > > from the URL. > > > > > > The cache might be populated with artifacts previously downloaded, but > > > > > > their URL is not valid anymore (my case for many tests). > > > > > > We can also add artifacts manually, see [1]. > > > > > > I'd rather keep pre-existing tests if possible, to test older > > > > > > (kernel / user-space) images. We don't need to run all the tests all > > > > > > the time: > > > > > > tests can be filtered by tags (see [2]). > > > > > > My preference here is to refactor this test, adding the > > > > > > "kci-2019.02" > > > > > > and "baseline-20221116.0" releases. I can prepare the patch if you / > > > > > > Thomas don't object. > > > > > > > > > > IMHO we shouldn't keep tests in the upstream git repository where the > > > > > binaries are not available in public anymore. They won't get run by > > > > > new contributors anymore, and also could vanish from the disks of the > > > > > people who previously downloaded it, once they wipe their cache or > > > > > upgrade to a new installation, so the test code will sooner or later > > > > > be bitrotting. But if you want to keep the tests around on your hard > > > > > disk, you could also stick the test in a local branch on your hard > > > > > disk instead. > > > > > > > > CI/Workstation splits aside I tend to agree with Thomas here that having > > > > tests no one else can run will lead to an accretion of broken tests. > > > > > > Following this idea, should we remove all boards for which no open > > > source & GPL software is available? I.e: > > > > > > 40p IBM RS/6000 7020 (40p) > > > > This machine can run debian : > > IMHO having QEMU able to run anything an architecture can run seems way > more interesting/helpful rather than restricting it to just open source > projects. > > > qemu-system-ppc -M 40p -cpu 604 -nic user -hda ./prep.qcow2 -cdrom > > ./zImage.hdd -serial mon:stdio -nographic > > >> ============================================================= > > >> OpenBIOS 1.1 [Mar 7 2022 23:07] > > >> Configuration device id QEMU version 1 machine id 0 > > >> CPUs: 0 > > >> Memory: 128M > > >> UUID: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 > > >> CPU type PowerPC,604 > > milliseconds isn't unique. > > Welcome to OpenBIOS v1.1 built on Mar 7 2022 23:07 > > Trying hd:,\\:tbxi... > > >> Not a bootable ELF image > > >> switching to new context: > > loaded at: 04000400 04015218 > > relocated to: 00800000 00814E18 > > board data at: 07C9E870 07CA527C > > relocated to: 0080B130 00811B3C > > zimage at: 0400B400 0411DC98 > > avail ram: 00400000 00800000 > > Linux/PPC load: console=/dev/ttyS0,9600 console=tty0 > > ether=5,0x210,eth0 ether=11,0x300,eth1 ramdisk_size=8192 root=/dev/sda3 > > Uncompressing Linux................................................done. > > Now booting the kernel > > Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 6015 ttyS0 > > 6015 login: > > > > Please keep it ! :) > > > > and it also boots AIX 4.4/5.1 (with 2 small patches) but that's clearly > > not open source. It is downloadable from the net though, like many macos > > PPC images. > > > > That said, we might have been putting too much in avocado and it takes > > ages to run (when it does not hit some random python issue). > > w.r.t. "too much in avocado", are you referring to GitLab CI? > > I see the following 2 use cases with Avocado: > 1/ Run tests locally > 2/ Run tests on CI > The set of tests used in 1/ and 2/ doesn't have to be the same... > > 1/ is very helpful for maintainers, to run tests specific to their > subsystems. Also useful during refactor when touching other subsystems, > to run their tests before sending a patch set. > > 2/ is the "gating" testing. With retrospective, it was a mistake to > start running avocado on CI without any filtering on what tests to run. > Instead of trying to explain my view here, I'd like to go back to Daniel > earlier proposal: > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20200427152036.GI1244803@redhat.com/ > > Per this proposal, we should only run 'Tier 1' on Gitlab CI. > Daniel described "Tier 1" as "[test that] Will always work." The key part there is to make clear that testing does not determine what code we accept into QEMU tree. It merely influences what quality level we tell users the code has. Ideally we would test everything, but realistically that's not viable, but we still want to take the features. > I'd like to > amend with "test that run in less than 150 seconds" (or less). If a test > takes more, we can run it on our workstations, but we shouldn't waste > CI cycles with it. I don't think we need to be so aggressive on time limits for individual tests. What matters for CI is not the individual test time, but the overall pipeline wallclock time. If we want our pipelines to be no longer than 45 minutes, it is still fine to have 4 tests that run 30 minutes each, provided we have sufficient resources to run all 4 in parallel. Keeping tests short is still a good thing, as it lets us run more overall, but if some need extra time that's ok. Above all else though, the top 5 requirements for any CI test we add are reliability, reliability, reliability, reliability and reliability. We can't keep spending so much time chasing broken tests. If the person merging QEMU pull requests just carries on ignoring tests as they're so frequently broken, the value of having the tests at all is drastically reduced, in terms of what they can promise us about quality of the code we ship. With regards, Daniel
diff --git a/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py b/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py index 4c9d551f47..5a2923c423 100644 --- a/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py +++ b/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py @@ -793,8 +793,8 @@ def test_arm_orangepi_sd(self): dtb_path = '/usr/lib/linux-image-current-sunxi/sun8i-h3-orangepi-pc.dtb' dtb_path = self.extract_from_deb(deb_path, dtb_path) rootfs_url = ('http://storage.kernelci.org/images/rootfs/buildroot/' - 'kci-2019.02/armel/base/rootfs.ext2.xz') - rootfs_hash = '692510cb625efda31640d1de0a8d60e26040f061' + 'buildroot-baseline/20221116.0/armel/rootfs.ext2.xz') + rootfs_hash = 'fae32f337c7b87547b10f42599acf109da8b6d9a' rootfs_path_xz = self.fetch_asset(rootfs_url, asset_hash=rootfs_hash) rootfs_path = os.path.join(self.workdir, 'rootfs.cpio') archive.lzma_uncompress(rootfs_path_xz, rootfs_path)
The old URL wasn't stable. I suspect the current URL will only be stable for a few months so maybe we need another strategy for hosting rootfs snapshots? Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> --- tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)