From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
To: Piotr Zarycki <piotr.zarycki@gmail.com>,
seanjc@google.com, pbonzini@redhat.com
Cc: shuah@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: selftests: hyperv_features: test write of 1 to HV_X64_MSR_RESET
Date: Mon, 25 May 2026 14:26:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <875x4bllp4.fsf@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ahGPQDJCT1aW7vVY@arch-piotr>
Piotr Zarycki <piotr.zarycki@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi,
>
> After receiving KVM_SYSTEM_EVENT_RESET the test simply advances to the
> next stage without resetting the vCPU. Is verifying
> KVM_SYSTEM_EVENT_RESET is delivered sufficient?
>
For every stage of this test we're basically using a new VM
(vm_create_with_one_vcpu()) thus it does not really matter much what we
do after receiving KVM_SYSTEM_EVENT_RESET.
The basic idea behind the test was to verify that
KVM_CAP_HYPERV_ENFORCE_CPUID works as expected, i.e. the guest gets
access to the MSRs/hypercalls according to the guest visible CPUIDs and
not to everything KVM knows about (I guess we could've named it
'hyperv_feature_access' to actually reflect that). It, however, makes
sense to actually test side-effects of writing to MSRs/using hypercalls,
especially when it's relatively easy and I see that the change here goes
in this direction. With this, I think it is a good and sufficient
change, so
Reviewed-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Thanks!
--
Vitaly
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-25 12:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-23 11:18 [PATCH] KVM: selftests: hyperv_features: test write of 1 to HV_X64_MSR_RESET Piotr Zarycki
2026-05-23 11:30 ` Piotr Zarycki
2026-05-25 12:26 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov [this message]
2026-05-27 18:10 ` Sean Christopherson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=875x4bllp4.fsf@redhat.com \
--to=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=piotr.zarycki@gmail.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.