From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDA2EC6FD1F for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 17:41:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229955AbjCVRlN (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2023 13:41:13 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56772 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230076AbjCVRlL (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2023 13:41:11 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x44a.google.com (mail-pf1-x44a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::44a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D9F85D76B for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 10:41:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x44a.google.com with SMTP id p36-20020a056a000a2400b005f72df7d97bso9412643pfh.19 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 10:41:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; t=1679506870; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=YesdF1o+GzhDJuZ/Udj8ca6OlrwlbgmV+ssn/MViB3Y=; b=ES3MTTWVJF3Lh9miyIydYMrcdquqjUJ6i1dtVLAn9HvdFiW7C/QyBtdCE/0BVmIKgH w6st+X+tszk3NDXWw53/EQYGIAVOUgS2EmGWTB2b21oAw8mMThn8Lq3NbR4D8xa9Ex5W DAW36YpqcBa6iPM2REL2rxdGH1wW4ICNysGSfxLlirqGVqyK69b1abef6wBYCUOOhquI hp7L58cwWLIe0NtUUUi6//q4MXht6OYjPUJHcNQrLkD/sIS78oEaMtQKT8nt+1L+JN28 Znfy7kT/t8aI0yxigNLVwKwPzLjAqs9GAlPmEuwczJQIXlHVKQWf9UldkRLaNke8wKIn i06Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1679506870; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=YesdF1o+GzhDJuZ/Udj8ca6OlrwlbgmV+ssn/MViB3Y=; b=x4IuHeH+qD0t9rAuoWDL21ZBhrZ9MH6M4d7uhvMw34NBBK8mc4AFm8bJT/VISYIs3A 7f4oLKt904jxICODTpy0LHIXpL+dAQBHfBEu9horTyzxGY4j4H7ki0BJKmFjWW475X6S X2O7mwGb/jOwestEV/1y2THFzEHZM9SLIjVN6dzt5R/k5DLGDsPX8pzxrgRQlfvA8a+g t9W3fk5ffILKOhdg3DPQVa7Uqy5Go3xUTbq9AkY3jPxvRf9E+JuvHh+grQFjk24IPumk DGKDCnTSn36C7+2EPMrCWtGvAiveTmHdMM2t7Ml3KB9QF2xwv+ko4Rp6XeENiT4iAInE /8uA== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKVejIOdAugTZi7p671p260NVmh2o4dxd5zZBHl0/8Ahbky4POPc q8BNntVd0YuOdx7FI9t3f9MFcPhE4Ow= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set8qlHUyhwjwk3c90JV8Tq1N4wnyQ//6TF16RskTAhQJfsd+IUr4994tmY3YTrka7GXpTeNq0/ISbns= X-Received: from zagreus.c.googlers.com ([fda3:e722:ac3:cc00:7f:e700:c0a8:5c37]) (user=seanjc job=sendgmr) by 2002:a65:6399:0:b0:50f:53aa:f662 with SMTP id h25-20020a656399000000b0050f53aaf662mr991438pgv.5.1679506869873; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 10:41:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 10:41:08 -0700 In-Reply-To: <87ilf0nc95.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <20230316031732.3591455-1-npiggin@gmail.com> <87ilf0nc95.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] KVM: PPC: support kvm selftests From: Sean Christopherson To: Michael Ellerman Cc: Nicholas Piggin , Paolo Bonzini , Shuah Khan , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 16, 2023, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Nicholas Piggin writes: > > Hi, > > > > This series adds initial KVM selftests support for powerpc > > (64-bit, BookS). > > Awesome. > > > It spans 3 maintainers but it does not really > > affect arch/powerpc, and it is well contained in selftests > > code, just touches some makefiles and a tiny bit headers so > > conflicts should be unlikely and trivial. > > > > I guess Paolo is the best point to merge these, if no comments > > or objections? > > Yeah. If it helps: > > Acked-by: Michael Ellerman (powerpc) What is the long term plan for KVM PPC maintenance? I was under the impression that KVM PPC was trending toward "bug fixes only", but the addition of selftests support suggests otherwise. I ask primarily because routing KVM PPC patches through the PPC tree is going to be problematic if KVM PPC sees signficiant development. The current situation is ok because the volume of patches is low and KVM PPC isn't trying to drive anything substantial into common KVM code, but if that changes... My other concern is that for selftests specifically, us KVM folks are taking on more maintenance burden by supporting PPC. AFAIK, none of the people that focus on KVM selftests in any meaningful capacity have access to PPC hardware, let alone know enough about the architecture to make intelligent code changes. Don't get me wrong, I'm very much in favor of more testing, I just don't want KVM to get left holding the bag. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C27CC6FD1C for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 17:42:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4PhbQB69q9z3f4p for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2023 04:42:10 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=ES3MTTWV; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com (client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::64a; helo=mail-pl1-x64a.google.com; envelope-from=3tt0bzaykdmq2okxtmqyyqvo.mywvsx47zzm-no5vs232.y9vkl2.y1q@flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=ES3MTTWV; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail-pl1-x64a.google.com (mail-pl1-x64a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::64a]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4PhbP70l41z3cMb for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2023 04:41:13 +1100 (AEDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x64a.google.com with SMTP id l1-20020a170903244100b001a0468b4afcso11033362pls.12 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 10:41:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; t=1679506870; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=YesdF1o+GzhDJuZ/Udj8ca6OlrwlbgmV+ssn/MViB3Y=; b=ES3MTTWVJF3Lh9miyIydYMrcdquqjUJ6i1dtVLAn9HvdFiW7C/QyBtdCE/0BVmIKgH w6st+X+tszk3NDXWw53/EQYGIAVOUgS2EmGWTB2b21oAw8mMThn8Lq3NbR4D8xa9Ex5W DAW36YpqcBa6iPM2REL2rxdGH1wW4ICNysGSfxLlirqGVqyK69b1abef6wBYCUOOhquI hp7L58cwWLIe0NtUUUi6//q4MXht6OYjPUJHcNQrLkD/sIS78oEaMtQKT8nt+1L+JN28 Znfy7kT/t8aI0yxigNLVwKwPzLjAqs9GAlPmEuwczJQIXlHVKQWf9UldkRLaNke8wKIn i06Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1679506870; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=YesdF1o+GzhDJuZ/Udj8ca6OlrwlbgmV+ssn/MViB3Y=; b=0Mg3y9jR9HuV9jziw5NapUvMWhYLYjEotAl8qMu2djn1cikoiWjGN3Nu8zpy6oti6d uM2lIr44Wp5EgAyps5OJDk18ATJUM4OohQxmjhXCD4grmx0c7Oi4KJwTFMUPfcaHR8hG 5qA4c4Mz5rIUGx5NG7u8CIU0QK5/SeMyKWzPtMkjhNAxCl0V57LNhkLdRqn3nZZp42Vf LDW0lnnMbAnHqkXxpsMInrmNEL9lHLttIuJFkZRpLh146i6DeYz2AdMWhfmm+s6tUSqK nV3V7kqv6l6NyLxHfDeNUbYOQ/ADgHaSU2l41liKiNrR1zMehSaBsX7zf3+aJMIc325V lrAA== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKUbHOpnL+AC0Qf/JrIlabiY+um037I+k2N3XkWUSv74Joipamj0 8Nj6TeKMr5EVTryW0QY0pzQt69RxuC4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set8qlHUyhwjwk3c90JV8Tq1N4wnyQ//6TF16RskTAhQJfsd+IUr4994tmY3YTrka7GXpTeNq0/ISbns= X-Received: from zagreus.c.googlers.com ([fda3:e722:ac3:cc00:7f:e700:c0a8:5c37]) (user=seanjc job=sendgmr) by 2002:a65:6399:0:b0:50f:53aa:f662 with SMTP id h25-20020a656399000000b0050f53aaf662mr991438pgv.5.1679506869873; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 10:41:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 10:41:08 -0700 In-Reply-To: <87ilf0nc95.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <20230316031732.3591455-1-npiggin@gmail.com> <87ilf0nc95.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] KVM: PPC: support kvm selftests From: Sean Christopherson To: Michael Ellerman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Nicholas Piggin , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini , Shuah Khan Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Thu, Mar 16, 2023, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Nicholas Piggin writes: > > Hi, > > > > This series adds initial KVM selftests support for powerpc > > (64-bit, BookS). > > Awesome. > > > It spans 3 maintainers but it does not really > > affect arch/powerpc, and it is well contained in selftests > > code, just touches some makefiles and a tiny bit headers so > > conflicts should be unlikely and trivial. > > > > I guess Paolo is the best point to merge these, if no comments > > or objections? > > Yeah. If it helps: > > Acked-by: Michael Ellerman (powerpc) What is the long term plan for KVM PPC maintenance? I was under the impression that KVM PPC was trending toward "bug fixes only", but the addition of selftests support suggests otherwise. I ask primarily because routing KVM PPC patches through the PPC tree is going to be problematic if KVM PPC sees signficiant development. The current situation is ok because the volume of patches is low and KVM PPC isn't trying to drive anything substantial into common KVM code, but if that changes... My other concern is that for selftests specifically, us KVM folks are taking on more maintenance burden by supporting PPC. AFAIK, none of the people that focus on KVM selftests in any meaningful capacity have access to PPC hardware, let alone know enough about the architecture to make intelligent code changes. Don't get me wrong, I'm very much in favor of more testing, I just don't want KVM to get left holding the bag.