From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-185.mta1.migadu.com (out-185.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.185]) (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 8A9DD1CF83 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:15:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.185 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724105754; cv=none; b=jyXz/DOcgSIlYcM32j05xoyKt8XMNWgi4rYxjt4uBrV/xKfI47NLQyw89b03Z5gTCuukqODUl+TyN38drwkJrnpcf/CDAnhV9Sbf9uCkxJKyeJUh4gf5oJLtHFYXHKcmVQvOsc0BAmrsWus3R4C9/8y6JYRs+j8mBK1+I0y8duI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724105754; c=relaxed/simple; bh=dhmWgF5o+4TJBNnJucLoSqJJ0PWGuqjfVYw+EUWZHqw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=uMoL2Sk734f40SqXw85hPBak0bdR+pllM8w5nKlMJfRor8r0QTLgPQ/jbvxraSY08eJWKGf1muDRe0eQT6TVhAImhm5BkNyej1Lf0pTL+qaheX1ZBfoq32Y2WLgaMUQ7q4Ll56aHk7XUphI1yVe6guVy/Fsm9h+o5epa6sQvqfE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=h2LIGvMl; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.185 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="h2LIGvMl" Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:15:44 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1724105750; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=gu8OxZt5OEjyJopGkCUwXelOpTcGPqYiU+pjfoBBknQ=; b=h2LIGvMl4WF+Y+S6+Iuotq2Ms73M4Y+MI8I8gS48xI2CWVCvyOryWI4PHfYvXo5Fq0GKXS 20bl2ZJsoIkmBX9nOnnIOF66BlcH6RMMjZpK0W9+UtFj1GbHU3ALvv/xHmm/StjkMs7J+k NU/QwrJB+fAJZyO4cbgicp6YsecU5rc= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Oliver Upton To: Sean Christopherson 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, Marc Zyngier , Christian Borntraeger , Janosch Frank , Claudio Imbrenda , Anup Patel Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] selftests: kvm: fix mkdir error when building for unsupported arch Message-ID: References: <20240819093030.2864163-1-usama.anjum@collabora.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT 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. -- Thanks, Oliver