On Wed, Dec 24, 2025, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Make room for the next test; separated for ease of review.

Heh, but after review, the discontiguous sync numbers are super confusing.  Rather
than use arbitrary, incrementing numbers, what if we specify the action the host
should take?  Then there's very little "magic" or implicit synchronization between
the guest and host.  The only downside is that the "stage" prints are useless/lost,
but IMO that's largely a non-issue.

Tangentially related, the test doesn't ever verify that a #NM actually occurs, now
would be a good time to address that.

Full set of patches attached.