From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDA2EC6FD1F for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 17:41:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229955AbjCVRlN (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2023 13:41:13 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56772 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230076AbjCVRlL (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2023 13:41:11 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x44a.google.com (mail-pf1-x44a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::44a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D9F85D76B for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 10:41:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x44a.google.com with SMTP id p36-20020a056a000a2400b005f72df7d97bso9412643pfh.19 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 10:41:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; t=1679506870; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=YesdF1o+GzhDJuZ/Udj8ca6OlrwlbgmV+ssn/MViB3Y=; b=ES3MTTWVJF3Lh9miyIydYMrcdquqjUJ6i1dtVLAn9HvdFiW7C/QyBtdCE/0BVmIKgH w6st+X+tszk3NDXWw53/EQYGIAVOUgS2EmGWTB2b21oAw8mMThn8Lq3NbR4D8xa9Ex5W DAW36YpqcBa6iPM2REL2rxdGH1wW4ICNysGSfxLlirqGVqyK69b1abef6wBYCUOOhquI hp7L58cwWLIe0NtUUUi6//q4MXht6OYjPUJHcNQrLkD/sIS78oEaMtQKT8nt+1L+JN28 Znfy7kT/t8aI0yxigNLVwKwPzLjAqs9GAlPmEuwczJQIXlHVKQWf9UldkRLaNke8wKIn i06Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1679506870; 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=YesdF1o+GzhDJuZ/Udj8ca6OlrwlbgmV+ssn/MViB3Y=; b=x4IuHeH+qD0t9rAuoWDL21ZBhrZ9MH6M4d7uhvMw34NBBK8mc4AFm8bJT/VISYIs3A 7f4oLKt904jxICODTpy0LHIXpL+dAQBHfBEu9horTyzxGY4j4H7ki0BJKmFjWW475X6S X2O7mwGb/jOwestEV/1y2THFzEHZM9SLIjVN6dzt5R/k5DLGDsPX8pzxrgRQlfvA8a+g t9W3fk5ffILKOhdg3DPQVa7Uqy5Go3xUTbq9AkY3jPxvRf9E+JuvHh+grQFjk24IPumk DGKDCnTSn36C7+2EPMrCWtGvAiveTmHdMM2t7Ml3KB9QF2xwv+ko4Rp6XeENiT4iAInE /8uA== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKVejIOdAugTZi7p671p260NVmh2o4dxd5zZBHl0/8Ahbky4POPc q8BNntVd0YuOdx7FI9t3f9MFcPhE4Ow= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set8qlHUyhwjwk3c90JV8Tq1N4wnyQ//6TF16RskTAhQJfsd+IUr4994tmY3YTrka7GXpTeNq0/ISbns= X-Received: from zagreus.c.googlers.com ([fda3:e722:ac3:cc00:7f:e700:c0a8:5c37]) (user=seanjc job=sendgmr) by 2002:a65:6399:0:b0:50f:53aa:f662 with SMTP id h25-20020a656399000000b0050f53aaf662mr991438pgv.5.1679506869873; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 10:41:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 10:41:08 -0700 In-Reply-To: <87ilf0nc95.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <20230316031732.3591455-1-npiggin@gmail.com> <87ilf0nc95.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] KVM: PPC: support kvm selftests From: Sean Christopherson To: Michael Ellerman Cc: Nicholas Piggin , Paolo Bonzini , Shuah Khan , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 16, 2023, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Nicholas Piggin writes: > > Hi, > > > > This series adds initial KVM selftests support for powerpc > > (64-bit, BookS). > > Awesome. > > > It spans 3 maintainers but it does not really > > affect arch/powerpc, and it is well contained in selftests > > code, just touches some makefiles and a tiny bit headers so > > conflicts should be unlikely and trivial. > > > > I guess Paolo is the best point to merge these, if no comments > > or objections? > > Yeah. If it helps: > > Acked-by: Michael Ellerman (powerpc) What is the long term plan for KVM PPC maintenance? I was under the impression that KVM PPC was trending toward "bug fixes only", but the addition of selftests support suggests otherwise. I ask primarily because routing KVM PPC patches through the PPC tree is going to be problematic if KVM PPC sees signficiant development. The current situation is ok because the volume of patches is low and KVM PPC isn't trying to drive anything substantial into common KVM code, but if that changes... My other concern is that for selftests specifically, us KVM folks are taking on more maintenance burden by supporting PPC. AFAIK, none of the people that focus on KVM selftests in any meaningful capacity have access to PPC hardware, let alone know enough about the architecture to make intelligent code changes. Don't get me wrong, I'm very much in favor of more testing, I just don't want KVM to get left holding the bag.