Re: [kvm-unit-tests RFC PATCH] arm/tlbflush.c: TLB flushing torture test [DEV]

[Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 03:58:59PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 27/07/2015 09:54, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > Also, please rename to tlbflush-test.c to differentiate it
> > from an implementation of tlbflush support, and to make
> > the standalone test name (if we commit those patches) more
> > descriptive.
> 
> I disagree here.  Support code would go in lib/arm.

Generally yes, and for arm, so far yes, but not always. In x86 we
have kvmclock.c (support) vs. kvmclock_test.c (the test). And powerpc
will have a support C file in powerpc vs. lib/powerpc as well, as I
feel it fits better there, since it's really part of cstart.

But that said, I'm not overly opposed to dropping -test from the
common case, only using it when necessary. We can also append -test
for standalone test names later, if we want to.

Thanks,
drew