Re: [GIT PULL] KVM/arm64 updates for 6.2

From: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"Andrew Jones" <andrew.jones@linux.dev>,
	"Usama Arif" <usama.arif@bytedance.com>,
	"Bagas Sanjaya" <bagasdotme@gmail.com>,
	"Ben Gardon" <bgardon@google.com>,
	"Maciej S . Szmigiero" <maciej.szmigiero@oracle.com>,
	"Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
	"Marek Szyprowski" <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
	"Marc Zyngier" <maz@kernel.org>,
	"Steven Price" <steven.price@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	"Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@kernel.org>,
	"Anshuman Khandual" <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
	"Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo" <acme@kernel.org>,
	"Mark Brown" <broonie@kernel.org>,
	kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, "Peter Collingbourne" <pcc@google.com>,
	"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>,
	"Cornelia Huck" <cohuck@redhat.com>,
	"Zhiyuan Dai" <daizhiyuan@phytium.com.cn>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] KVM/arm64 updates for 6.2
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2022 21:51:33 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y5EK5dDBhutOQTf6@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3230b8bd-b763-9ad1-769b-68e6555e4100@redhat.com>

On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 06:41:21PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 12/5/22 16:58, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > - There is a lot of selftest conflicts with your own branch, see:
> > 
> >    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221201112432.4cb9ae42@canb.auug.org.au
> >    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221201113626.438f13c5@canb.auug.org.au
> >    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221201115741.7de32422@canb.auug.org.au
> >    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221201120939.3c19f004@canb.auug.org.au
> >    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221201131623.18ebc8d8@canb.auug.org.au
> > 
> >    for a rather exhaustive collection.
> 
> Yeah, I saw them in Stephen's messages but missed your reply.
> 
> In retrospect, at least Gavin's series for memslot_perf_test should have
> been applied by both of us with a topic branch, but there's so many
> conflicts all over the place that it's hard to single out one series.
> It just happens.
> 
> The only conflict in non-x86 code is the following one, please check
> if I got it right.
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/page_fault_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/page_fault_test.c
> index 05bb6a6369c2..0cda70bef5d5 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/page_fault_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/page_fault_test.c
> @@ -609,6 +609,8 @@ static void setup_memslots(struct kvm_vm *vm, struct test_params *p)
>  				    data_size / guest_page_size,
>  				    p->test_desc->data_memslot_flags);
>  	vm->memslots[MEM_REGION_TEST_DATA] = TEST_DATA_MEMSLOT;
> +
> +	ucall_init(vm, data_gpa + data_size);
>  }
>  static void setup_default_handlers(struct test_desc *test)
> @@ -704,8 +706,6 @@ static void run_test(enum vm_guest_mode mode, void *arg)
>  	setup_gva_maps(vm);
> -	ucall_init(vm, NULL);
> -
>  	reset_event_counts();
>  	/*
> 
> 
> Special care is needed here because the test uses ____vm_create().
> 
> I haven't pushed to kvm/next yet to give you time to check, so the
> merge is currently in kvm/queue only.

Have a look at this series, which gets things building and actually
passing again:

https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20221207214809.489070-1-oliver.upton@linux.dev/

> > - For the 6.3 cycle, we are going to experiment with Oliver taking
> >    care of most of the patch herding. I'm sure he'll do a great job,
> >    but if there is the odd mistake, please cut him some slack and blame
> >    me instead.
> 
> Absolutely - you both have all the slack you need, synchronization
> is harder than it seems.

Appreciated!

--
Thanks,
Oliver
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm