Re: [PATCH 0/5] KVM: x86: Use kernel x86 cpuid utilities in KVM selftests

[Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>]

On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 06:50:41PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 29/06/21 19:28, Jim Mattson wrote:
> > > Thanks. I was thinking about kvm-unit-tests, but the issue is that it
> > > would also be a copy. And just like with kernel headers, it would be
> > > ideal to keep them in-sync. The advantage of the kernel headers is that
> > > it's much easier to check and fix diffs with them. On the other hand, as
> > > you say, there would not be any #ifdef stuff with kvm=unit-tests. Please
> > > let me know what you think.
> > 
> > I think the kvm-unit-tests implementation is superior to the kernel
> > implementation, but that's probably because I suggested it. Still, I
> > think there's an argument to be made that selftests, unlike
> > kvm-unit-tests, are part of the kernel distribution and should be
> > consistent with the kernel where possible.
> > 
> > Paolo?
> 
> I also prefer the kvm-unit-tests implementation, for what it's worth...
> Let's see what the code looks like?

I'm not sure I understand the question. You mean: let's see how this
looks using kvm-unit-tests headers? If that's the case I can work on a
v3 using kvm-unit-tests.

Thanks,
Ricardo

> 
> Paolo
>