From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 03/14] KVM: selftests: Return a value from vcpu_get_reg() instead of using an out-param
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 09:16:42 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZyT-6iCNlA1VSAV3@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZyT9rSnLcDWkWoL_@linux.dev>
On Fri, Nov 01, 2024, Oliver Upton wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 08:59:16AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > Can you instead just push out a topic branch and let the affected
> > > maintainers deal with it? This is the usual way we handle conflicts
> > > between trees...
> >
> > That'd work too, but as you note below, doing that now throws a wrench in things
> > because essentially all arch maintainers would need merge that topic branch,
> > otherwise linux-next would end up in the same state.
>
> TBH, I'm quite happy with that. Recent history has not been particularly
> convinincing to me that folks are actually testing arm64, let alone
> compiling for it when applying selftests patches.
FWIW, I did compile all patches on all KVM architectures, including selftests.
But my base obviously didn't include the kvm-arm64 branch :-/
One thing I'll add to my workflow would be to do a local merge (and smoke test)
of linux-next into kvm-x86 next before pushing it out. This isn't the only snafu
this cycle where such a sanity check would have saved me and others a bit of pain.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241101153857.GAZyT2EdLXKs7ZmDFx at fat_crate.local
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>,
James Houghton <jthoughton@google.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
linux-next@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/14] KVM: selftests: Return a value from vcpu_get_reg() instead of using an out-param
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 09:16:42 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZyT-6iCNlA1VSAV3@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZyT9rSnLcDWkWoL_@linux.dev>
On Fri, Nov 01, 2024, Oliver Upton wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 08:59:16AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > Can you instead just push out a topic branch and let the affected
> > > maintainers deal with it? This is the usual way we handle conflicts
> > > between trees...
> >
> > That'd work too, but as you note below, doing that now throws a wrench in things
> > because essentially all arch maintainers would need merge that topic branch,
> > otherwise linux-next would end up in the same state.
>
> TBH, I'm quite happy with that. Recent history has not been particularly
> convinincing to me that folks are actually testing arm64, let alone
> compiling for it when applying selftests patches.
FWIW, I did compile all patches on all KVM architectures, including selftests.
But my base obviously didn't include the kvm-arm64 branch :-/
One thing I'll add to my workflow would be to do a local merge (and smoke test)
of linux-next into kvm-x86 next before pushing it out. This isn't the only snafu
this cycle where such a sanity check would have saved me and others a bit of pain.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241101153857.GAZyT2EdLXKs7ZmDFx@fat_crate.local
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>,
James Houghton <jthoughton@google.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
linux-next@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/14] KVM: selftests: Return a value from vcpu_get_reg() instead of using an out-param
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 09:16:42 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZyT-6iCNlA1VSAV3@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZyT9rSnLcDWkWoL_@linux.dev>
On Fri, Nov 01, 2024, Oliver Upton wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 08:59:16AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > Can you instead just push out a topic branch and let the affected
> > > maintainers deal with it? This is the usual way we handle conflicts
> > > between trees...
> >
> > That'd work too, but as you note below, doing that now throws a wrench in things
> > because essentially all arch maintainers would need merge that topic branch,
> > otherwise linux-next would end up in the same state.
>
> TBH, I'm quite happy with that. Recent history has not been particularly
> convinincing to me that folks are actually testing arm64, let alone
> compiling for it when applying selftests patches.
FWIW, I did compile all patches on all KVM architectures, including selftests.
But my base obviously didn't include the kvm-arm64 branch :-/
One thing I'll add to my workflow would be to do a local merge (and smoke test)
of linux-next into kvm-x86 next before pushing it out. This isn't the only snafu
this cycle where such a sanity check would have saved me and others a bit of pain.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241101153857.GAZyT2EdLXKs7ZmDFx@fat_crate.local
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-01 16:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 84+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-09 15:49 [PATCH v3 00/14] KVM: selftests: Morph max_guest_mem to mmu_stress Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` [PATCH v3 01/14] KVM: Move KVM_REG_SIZE() definition to common uAPI header Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-10 11:41 ` Anup Patel
2024-10-10 11:41 ` Anup Patel
2024-10-10 11:41 ` Anup Patel
2024-10-09 15:49 ` [PATCH v3 02/14] KVM: selftests: Disable strict aliasing Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` [PATCH v3 03/14] KVM: selftests: Return a value from vcpu_get_reg() instead of using an out-param Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-11-01 13:07 ` Mark Brown
2024-11-01 13:07 ` Mark Brown
2024-11-01 13:07 ` Mark Brown
2024-11-01 14:48 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-11-01 14:48 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-11-01 14:48 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-11-01 15:38 ` Oliver Upton
2024-11-01 15:38 ` Oliver Upton
2024-11-01 15:38 ` Oliver Upton
2024-11-01 15:59 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-11-01 15:59 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-11-01 15:59 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-11-01 16:11 ` Oliver Upton
2024-11-01 16:11 ` Oliver Upton
2024-11-01 16:11 ` Oliver Upton
2024-11-01 16:16 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2024-11-01 16:16 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-11-01 16:16 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-11-01 16:22 ` Oliver Upton
2024-11-01 16:22 ` Oliver Upton
2024-11-01 16:22 ` Oliver Upton
2024-11-01 16:31 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-11-01 16:31 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-11-01 16:31 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-11-01 16:37 ` Mark Brown
2024-11-01 16:37 ` Mark Brown
2024-11-01 16:37 ` Mark Brown
2024-10-09 15:49 ` [PATCH v3 04/14] KVM: selftests: Assert that vcpu_{g,s}et_reg() won't truncate Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` [PATCH v3 05/14] KVM: selftests: Check for a potential unhandled exception iff KVM_RUN succeeded Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` [PATCH v3 06/14] KVM: selftests: Rename max_guest_memory_test to mmu_stress_test Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` [PATCH v3 07/14] KVM: selftests: Only muck with SREGS on x86 in mmu_stress_test Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` [PATCH v3 08/14] KVM: selftests: Compute number of extra pages needed " Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` [PATCH v3 09/14] KVM: sefltests: Explicitly include ucall_common.h in mmu_stress_test.c Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
[not found] ` <CADrL8HUEwnP8e700y2XYDgVhhUJuj1UEJmd2NLdtZ1dV845DNw@mail.gmail.com>
2024-10-28 20:45 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-28 20:45 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-28 20:45 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` [PATCH v3 10/14] KVM: selftests: Enable mmu_stress_test on arm64 Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` [PATCH v3 11/14] KVM: selftests: Use vcpu_arch_put_guest() in mmu_stress_test Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` [PATCH v3 12/14] KVM: selftests: Precisely limit the number of guest loops " Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` [PATCH v3 13/14] KVM: selftests: Add a read-only mprotect() phase to mmu_stress_test Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` [PATCH v3 14/14] KVM: selftests: Verify KVM correctly handles mprotect(PROT_READ) Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-09 15:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-31 19:51 ` [PATCH v3 00/14] KVM: selftests: Morph max_guest_mem to mmu_stress Sean Christopherson
2024-10-31 19:51 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-10-31 19:51 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-11-05 5:53 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-11-05 5:53 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-11-05 5:53 ` 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=ZyT-6iCNlA1VSAV3@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.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.