Re: [PATCH 0/2] KVM: PPC: support kvm selftests

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Mon, Mar 27, 2023, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> On Thu Mar 23, 2023 at 3:41 AM AEST, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 16, 2023, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> 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 <mpe@ellerman.id.au> (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.
> 
> We plan to continue maintaining it. New support and features has been a
> bit low in the past couple of years, hopefully that will pick up a bit
> though.

Partly out of curiosity, but also to get a general feel for what types of changes
we might see, what are the main use cases for KVM PPC these days?  E.g. is it mainly
a vehicle for developing and testing, hosting VMs in the cloud, something else?

> > 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... 
> 
> Michael has done KVM topic branches to pull from a few times when such
> conflicts came up (at smaller scale). If we end up with larger changes
> or regular conflicts we might start up a kvm-ppc tree again I guess.

A wait-and-see approach works for me.  I don't have any complaints with the current
process, I was just caught off guard.

> > 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.
> 
> Understood. I'll be happy to maintain powerpc part of kvm selftests and
> do any fixes that are needed for core code changes.If support fell away
> you could leave it broken (or rm -rf it if you prefer) -- I wouldn't ask
> anybody to work on archs they don't know or aren't paid to.
> 
> Not sure if anything more can be done to help your process or ease your
> mind. It (KVM and kvm-selftests) can run in QEMU at least.

Updating the KVM/powerpc to include selftests would be very helpful, e.g

  F:	tools/testing/selftests/kvm/*/powerpc/
  F:	tools/testing/selftests/kvm/powerpc/

and ideally there would be one or more M: (and R:) entries as well.  I'm not
all that concerned about the selftests support being abandoned, but the lack of
specific contacts makes it look like KVM PPC is in maintenance-only mode, and it
sounds like that's not the case.

Thanks!