From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f202.google.com (mail-pl1-f202.google.com [209.85.214.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31A833630B1 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2026 21:33:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.202 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777584839; cv=none; b=SzQ5XR+ewujPhzujjYyG9JL0YC+CKoCR7qnzUxlYj8zBTujqFoobVn7MutRRDqGkYyaobL/IFS+D7+noH7aRdjq4fqgg3GkYchVTfxeQ+jTMgjhdtGAJuQewp2S+OrcCFXHSATaLeXH0kPoZVKLJzvjUCuBvaCgLTeUTP75W/fw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777584839; c=relaxed/simple; bh=JcVexfd46A8wLB97O3kRQFpwuB1yF8WZFEadUCwfhGI=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=W0VXLdCruXl/XFz2grnemeMNncy5W1I+Pz1SXnYzHeO3f/JdlGHapDdiGJ+aCm8CtNdoc0FH7PvSQmMrdz+nudKnm24Gl8rRg9qCdJG6zfooKz/EQklQkDCe2CfjFetPxdpfkKHA0C6mAtwMoH2QTHcPhgc6IYot9eWOzaz115Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=UVUtdbJ7; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.202 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="UVUtdbJ7" Received: by mail-pl1-f202.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2b24611696eso9830405ad.3 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2026 14:33:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20251104; t=1777584836; x=1778189636; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=UHm0sEioh+jDjKJxztWR2+g8WGq2mOpd+TCLZdSB6w8=; b=UVUtdbJ7kzema/0crMnIlvfqYPkAcp2x3AVo7BX9g7szc0xEVUjaVGT4j1CnTYky3J AzRbpVSiK+K345yrHRMp5RJJU6SLcNrTLbrRvdkuJNwUSfTIgrkUiXKq1+TIA1z+V5Qf Bju9Aa9PkpohIQ3KEF8frRoHwN7ysvKF2W9ZxC+w3Y4OKFbmm42E+txpPYyb6dHhdKzq V7RkSBQUswsGpdTc8HuuhSsiOiPJZxhOdFQ/5JDGdqch6k75G8z/ZJ3I+Ww00EffBxmV 0BwS3eiU01lCRHRWL7Gd08w3bWOLJgaHjUOBcjFdc2fPOuWh+4tOpotdMsyrqxY3OeuG uzkA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1777584836; x=1778189636; 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=UHm0sEioh+jDjKJxztWR2+g8WGq2mOpd+TCLZdSB6w8=; b=Umk6OJ6RtOSV4ZCsjIsjwQPfpEt18PQT6LrwHBVBrtqlGf5vO05Qkz30gcaoiBXnLZ quvrx54iwr2rpdhJd4TBsRbdiWRvjUA408LDv8XAkPxx5ezLzsvetyBXS8iuo5znCDdW cgh+8ezB7TlWm2J+0x4kUKlc11iMMhm8VFtUp9xZ5cCXfg3yRzaN/FCmMNjo98222sxW w29S9QUdV68LHZ2v/fPRcHsUnqlGoI3zWnfgVL+pyCgPG45ydEgYX6LwWC8+EuNDYrrP eLEGxkS4bZLBiHyLyv/TC93hFh/aoofbrtkfjphIbHZA7arC/IcrGYd3XUO+Xe1b2C/w CX2w== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AFNElJ/BdPtaYYFRF7IEcydCVJ5YpOOnCGhqr8iwKFxo+UtWFRcApwPJWg/yflES2S8STkTxK38=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwHjyHCCSP/wcKszp72m9nitTCFF6iRcHNxQHwb05dI3Na/f+2j cQ3R+ck1hwUJ29VUE9HVhV3XLmByLCfk3qgpAT/aV/T0NKw4WnSLpu+IMvzOhi2ajNWnDidUUYl 8uduLLw== X-Received: from plpj6.prod.google.com ([2002:a17:903:3d86:b0:2b2:4d17:25c]) (user=seanjc job=prod-delivery.src-stubby-dispatcher) by 2002:a17:903:2ac7:b0:2b9:4eaa:7153 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2b9a24b4fdbmr46434185ad.19.1777584836425; Thu, 30 Apr 2026 14:33:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2026 14:33:54 -0700 In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <20260428171541.1342335-1-seanjc@google.com> <20260428171541.1342335-4-seanjc@google.com> Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] MAINTAINERS: Add an entry for KVM's guest_memfd From: Sean Christopherson To: Ackerley Tng Cc: Paolo Bonzini , David Hildenbrand , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Yosry Ahmed , Marc Zyngier , Oliver Upton , Tianrui Zhao , Bibo Mao , Huacai Chen , Anup Patel , Christian Borntraeger , Janosch Frank , Claudio Imbrenda Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Thu, Apr 30, 2026, Ackerley Tng wrote: > Sean Christopherson writes: > > > To better reflect how guest_memfd has been maintained for the last few > > years, and to prepare for significant upcoming growth and expansion, add a > > dedicated MAINTAINERS entry for KVM's guest_memfd, with Paolo and myself > > (Sean) as co-maintainers. > > > > List both the KVM and KVM x86 git trees as authoritative repositories, as > > any given guest_memfd change has a equal odds of hitting KVM x86 or not. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson > > --- > > MAINTAINERS | 9 +++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > > index 89b470db22de..9eceeb6f699d 100644 > > --- a/MAINTAINERS > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > > @@ -14396,6 +14396,15 @@ S: Maintained > > F: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/backlight/kinetic,ktz8866.yaml > > F: drivers/video/backlight/ktz8866.c > > > > +KVM GUEST_MEMFD > > +M: Sean Christopherson > > +M: Paolo Bonzini > > +L: kvm@vger.kernel.org > > +S: Supported > > +T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/virt/kvm/kvm.git > > +T: git https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux.git > > +F: virt/kvm/guest_memfd.* > > Should selftests for guest_memfd be added here too? Hmm, no? I don't think I want to go to that level of granularity for selftests, at least not at this time. Maybe if we end up with a large collection of guest_memfd specific, arch-agnostic tests, then we could extend the entry? But even then, I don't think I want to go that route. Much of the guest_memfd functionality and testing is in common files and/or arch-specific code, e.g. a lot of the truly core functionality is in lib/kvm_util.c, and set_memory_region_test.c and x86/private_mem_conversions_test.c have about as much guest_memfd testing as guest_memfd_test.c. I worry that adding a selftests clause to KVM GUEST_MEMFD would do more harm than good, e.g. create expectations that guest_memfd testing should be isolated and/or be reviewed differently or something, without actually making it easier to maintain the tests.