Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Guestperf: miscellaneous refinement and enrichment

[Yong Huang]

On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 1:40 AM Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 10:15:57AM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
> We shouldn't be adding warnings to the build like that. When building
> static binaries, I'd assume the person at least knows there's a -static
> in there somewhere. If you're just building the system binaries and
> warnings start to show up, that's not good. Since this is just a side
> script that's very infrequently used, I don't think it justifies the
> extra warning.

Yeah this could be a valid point.

The main issue is I believe 99.999999% of people building qemu will not use
stress.c and the initrd at all.  It means we could start burning some tiny
little more cpus all over the worlds for nothing.. the added warning is a
bad extra side effect of that.

So I wonder if it would make more sense to only build stress.c manually

Ok, get it.

 

like before, until some of the stress test would be put into either 'make
check' or CI flows.  Then we decide whether to fix the warning or not.

Yes, I think that adding the essential guestperf test to "make check"

(like migration via a Unix socket) may make sense, at least from the

perspective of guestperf's usability.

--
Peter Xu

--

Best regards