Re: [PATCH v4 00/16] KVM: selftests: "tree" wide overhauls

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Wed, Nov 27, 2024, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Two separate series (mmu_stress_test[1] and $ARCH[2]), posted as one to
> avoid unpleasant conflicts, and because I hope to land both in kvm/next
> shortly after 6.12-rc1 since they impact all of KVM selftests.
> 
> mmu_stress_test
> ---------------
> Convert the max_guest_memory_test into a more generic mmu_stress_test.
> The basic gist of the "conversion" is to have the test do mprotect() on
> guest memory while vCPUs are accessing said memory, e.g. to verify KVM
> and mmu_notifiers are working as intended.
> 
> The original plan was that patch 3 would be a single patch, but things
> snowballed in order to rework vcpu_get_reg() to return a value instead
> of using an out-param.  Having to define a variable just to bump the
> program counter on arm64 annoyed me.
> 
> $ARCH
> -----
> Play nice with treewrite builds of unsupported architectures, e.g. arm
> (32-bit), as KVM selftests' Makefile doesn't do anything to ensure the
> target architecture is actually one KVM selftests supports.
> 
> The last two patches are opportunistic changes (since the above Makefile
> change will generate conflicts everywhere) to switch to using $(ARCH)
> instead of the target triple for arch specific directories, e.g. arm64
> instead of aarch64, mainly so as not to be different from the rest of
> the kernel.

Paolo,

Unless you or someone else have concerns, can you apply this to kvm/next sooner
than later?  I'd like to start applying selftests changes for 6.14 and don't want
generate conflicts, and I really don't want to have to rebase and push this series
out again.

Thanks!