From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-170.mta0.migadu.com (out-170.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.170]) (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 2091A1B6CF2 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:22:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.170 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730478164; cv=none; b=aiVaqjsSbf5BWgwMWg1K2aUHqC8X9LvnxYb467So6bMO0q/pmmNxW1VLllmRk+pPzGv2wwh+5bcniUUVyMnWfPkzMFFkeUhG80hiQdFP/C8cdmaG+KbYPmf3t/JtGKZEhV2+hPKoXJ9fYMOsbIeimDrZL+63mN8QRCzTNWeIuYM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730478164; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ToEoY8y5UeAertZfIJABhwA7CpheQxwWzqqoTdcGFu8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Nw666fn+c6K21mGWTK7NsTHwHFzth4uKYNoymbYHNjPywG+siMwRmvI/9pxOLEa4dEsve3lwDe/fSkTY33+kQ5ysR2piKlrFxkjx3ErIgB65QbT9JX4pMx9hLpMOwO+/KpGW3T/UAReMSRef7ifGEn3tViEwvH4kP6d21s9XBc8= 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=lZKBzO/N; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.170 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="lZKBzO/N" Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 09:22:30 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1730478160; 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=1evd5lGbHCuOT8tfPmadcUQqa04tuGgPb+HSVtJmF8k=; b=lZKBzO/N0DQ5XxKAtQkk86AjV5mYav4byhccRQ4eBvOGkAaxRH67vY48wf6QsY3GcRJOQc Jcc90LHPWM7riQBmj5VKnWMXM9M0Jd1tad4KG4IqFHlBItdwH/wCsGkCn5RbmsKe15w2bz xwxx3Z3KDUlP1gGnQMEpFuUjx4hu94M= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Oliver Upton To: Sean Christopherson Cc: Mark Brown , Marc Zyngier , Anup Patel , Paul Walmsley , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou , Paolo Bonzini , Christian Borntraeger , Janosch Frank , Claudio Imbrenda , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Jones , James Houghton , David Woodhouse , linux-next@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/14] KVM: selftests: Return a value from vcpu_get_reg() instead of using an out-param Message-ID: References: <20241009154953.1073471-1-seanjc@google.com> <20241009154953.1073471-4-seanjc@google.com> <39ea24d8-9dae-447a-ae37-e65878c3806f@sirena.org.uk> 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 Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 09:16:42AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Fri, Nov 01, 2024, Oliver Upton wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 08:59:16AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > > Can you instead just push out a topic branch and let the affected > > > > maintainers deal with it? This is the usual way we handle conflicts > > > > between trees... > > > > > > That'd work too, but as you note below, doing that now throws a wrench in things > > > because essentially all arch maintainers would need merge that topic branch, > > > otherwise linux-next would end up in the same state. > > > > TBH, I'm quite happy with that. Recent history has not been particularly > > convinincing to me that folks are actually testing arm64, let alone > > compiling for it when applying selftests patches. > > FWIW, I did compile all patches on all KVM architectures, including selftests. > But my base obviously didn't include the kvm-arm64 branch :-/ Oh, that rip wasn't aimed at you, commit 76f972c2cfdf ("KVM: selftests: Fix build on architectures other than x86_64") just came to mind. > One thing I'll add to my workflow would be to do a local merge (and smoke test) > of linux-next into kvm-x86 next before pushing it out. This isn't the only snafu > this cycle where such a sanity check would have saved me and others a bit of pain. Eh, shit happens, that's what -next is for :) The only point I wanted to make was that it is perfectly fine by me to spread the workload w/ a topic branch if things blow up sometime after your changes show up in -next. -- Thanks, Oliver