From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 813D816D33C; Tue, 20 Aug 2024 06:40:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724136031; cv=none; b=JYuTJkWFAmZ4bdhgGFZhQLl0HhI9x9M88J9bOS6/Asd8SlskWH/0PqLV7Qc6ZbxjZxR2enkR/mDK3VRxwvabA1MZbRdgUKLJq7AZUdJPHaU9ySgB3oQuc0LtWAuKRSAXczxrVM3p+B3lZBpyh8pKUdB+KSFUOIunubXVqdGsXoM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724136031; c=relaxed/simple; bh=DkfoFALPN2xD7HjJ/NjpcJQg9u8DPkmbjme03VAQ95w=; h=Date:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=d6dnPi3z328qKdtSJr0Y5yuUUYmv6zGHvaI0axalvqlsonG6R1YXmQ1usomd3hSMTD41RFVLKaa081xDBAyxmRwma+P2S2sXAzwRX0bBRyM+wGe7PQWwsejhUOVZK8vWiccyUkAx1v8a3SaeaYHFOdiKbye6jiCOvmbjmIQ5T/k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=TMIZeLI6; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="TMIZeLI6" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1C13CC4AF0B; Tue, 20 Aug 2024 06:40:30 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1724136031; bh=DkfoFALPN2xD7HjJ/NjpcJQg9u8DPkmbjme03VAQ95w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=TMIZeLI6JZQ/KeiErTvIHzLY9Wk1PEruLYw4rKR4cBI8GpltVhh8xOq9C44ILt3fh 6I9b265VRmgn2b4pF8bjNVRlUx3MgIL+zyWiC+DVWSMdlY5ZY4KwwnRzC2rcvi/UOA g91zN/T/xLW9+If4ma0poRnk+kDavoSRHzR9tO9cAR4jWXfq3jCJ68KGNFZR6ueXKG aCqWO4T49/GjMgfYoBFT8OrKNuwmOML5KYv2cqLb4KbTKSi+o5exvg7AZKeGwI9mia nlCyk6y0KI+Bs7V568AdhtMz2dcYsdi+ZivXo7I85BJTGmhfdvjB7qshV0A4oDjFbF ytUUSmkC5r6aw== Received: from sofa.misterjones.org ([185.219.108.64] helo=goblin-girl.misterjones.org) by disco-boy.misterjones.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from ) id 1sgIXZ-005ASL-WC; Tue, 20 Aug 2024 07:40:27 +0100 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 07:40:24 +0100 Message-ID: <86wmkby9wn.wl-maz@kernel.org> From: Marc Zyngier To: Sean Christopherson , Oliver Upton Cc: Muhammad Usama Anjum , Paolo Bonzini , Shuah Khan , kernel@collabora.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christian Borntraeger , Janosch Frank , Claudio Imbrenda , Anup Patel Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] selftests: kvm: fix mkdir error when building for unsupported arch In-Reply-To: References: <20240819093030.2864163-1-usama.anjum@collabora.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue) FLIM-LB/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL-LB/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/29.4 (aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 185.219.108.64 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: seanjc@google.com, oliver.upton@linux.dev, usama.anjum@collabora.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, shuah@kernel.org, kernel@collabora.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, borntraeger@linux.ibm.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com, imbrenda@linux.ibm.com, anup@brainfault.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: maz@kernel.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on disco-boy.misterjones.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 23:15:44 +0100, Oliver Upton wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 09:33:17AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > And other KVM maintainers, the big question is: if we do the above, would now be > > a decent time to bite the bullet and switch to the kernel's canonical arch paths, > > i.e. arm64, s390, and x86? I feel like if we're ever going to get away from > > using aarch64, x86_64, and s390x, this is as about a good of an opportunity as > > we're going to get. > > I'm pretty much indifferent on the matter, but I won't complain if you > send out a change for this. Same here. Call it arm64 or aargh64, same difference. Whatever we change, some people will moan anyway. M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.