From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDDAD238C34 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2025 14:00:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.17 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748959253; cv=none; b=Ueix6V1rFq7ZxaC5rYTjLfFfUl0V8kzLlGEQxOHKhRaCtGqsq5oejGPyYwbvsv+3y54byjGdNTxMMlRFLGKima9hdTXulij1zSFxTBLRebepL+aF0nZZOesEXX2xlgPLc+mVEFnBDj6WE+R9UkstgckDlF0gaPP/CzN+TE1tlO0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748959253; c=relaxed/simple; bh=NHiib8ex5nQmGUHfV8CWHB2qBWj2cvZKJi/TJZ9JG78=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Jc/DIE2fNUPpan9TcL7tei4gwKxEAGRltJCKsBlmicIeKh8Vu6X/+3gvP+Y/2V8SicUWuOBWAA51aE012Ne/461Kl1/aywY51DEwnbsj+lzXHiIaRMP0oJgf/SwOtqV7Zo22Zlma//qXBc5LibYAtqoWo83fX2vANNBHsAT6Z7c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=ZJJRKa2w; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.17 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="ZJJRKa2w" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1748959252; x=1780495252; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:references:from: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NHiib8ex5nQmGUHfV8CWHB2qBWj2cvZKJi/TJZ9JG78=; b=ZJJRKa2woO3N0lF1ibYo62nS3EgmZiC+6iZ8o7mOWHU6+fQ2ZdMJJJBI PXBOgbU8ORG0VXu5pCtMd2wBQVHTbuuii4rbQRwFQLlO84fAry5d143bn xJzvLtgAvQCYlY9+eNQc7fzrdv+ZmBs619/FTyNx2XcOx2kVY4b4ba43x 1GlbYLLb2IRvxnlTI9ln8GLRScg6UcouK5un1oxUK4JiVeptaGXQf6MUA rqJ8S2kr9GTGSLKN1SMHvY1feCDX5B/yQO2eykYdsj3jY6XUTYQj9qV0i lmZUVpYwUF/nkg5UC/yNB63nuBjePKiwNjDFQKhVlbr1Hh51Xhl4sg3aZ A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: kPR8JoHOQ1uj9QUIZYKycQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: +wJ+QzkjTn2PRW59cUgT5A== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11453"; a="50917413" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.16,206,1744095600"; d="scan'208";a="50917413" Received: from orviesa009.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.149]) by fmvoesa111.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Jun 2025 07:00:51 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: zxyhYhu5SYqTM46FZ9xdpw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: dqy/DmYoRia3loF8iQ67zw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.16,206,1744095600"; d="scan'208";a="144898140" Received: from iherna2-mobl4.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.125.110.198]) ([10.125.110.198]) by orviesa009-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Jun 2025 07:00:51 -0700 Message-ID: <48e4eee5-aed0-4ec1-bf2c-88a865be3c9b@intel.com> Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 07:00:50 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Kernel test setup To: Itaru Kitayama , linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org References: <0A157714-A431-4AAB-A4E6-DB0C32DB73E9@linux.dev> Content-Language: en-US From: Dave Jiang In-Reply-To: <0A157714-A431-4AAB-A4E6-DB0C32DB73E9@linux.dev> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/1/25 3:03 PM, Itaru Kitayama wrote: > Hi Alison, all, > > Your comments cleared up my incorrect assumption (in order for meson test —suite cxl to success, CXL device emulation is required): > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cxl/aC_rWIc9TY5F2wGf@aschofie-mobl2.lan/ > > Now I wonder, thanks to Jonathan’s QEMU series being proposed to upstream, if it is possible to test the CXL “next" kernel in a fully CXL devices emulated environment be it on arm/virt or q35 machine. What do you think? I think a new group of tests are needed if we (the community) want tests against QEMU emulation. I would love to see that addition to add more robustness to kernel CXL regression testing. The current tests are written exclusively for cxl_test. There are certain design choices made and certain test cases specifically created by cxl_test to exercise kernel paths. As always, patches are welcome to augment CXL CLI package testing. :) > > Itaru.