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

[Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>]

On Tue, 06 Dec 2022 17:41:21 +0000,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> 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.

I generally queue things on topic branches for my own sanity, happy to
make them available in the future.

> 
> 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.

There has been a couple of -next failures reported by broonie:

https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221206175916.250104-1-broonie@kernel.org
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221206181506.252537-1-broonie@kernel.org

which I think you've received as well. The second patch is definitely
needed, but you've already solved the first one. At least things do
build.

> 
> > - 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.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.