Re: [PATCH 2/4] selftests: kvm: replace numbered sync points with actions

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Wed, Jan 07, 2026, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 1:02 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> > > @@ -244,6 +254,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> > >       memset(addr_gva2hva(vm, xstate), 0, PAGE_SIZE * DIV_ROUND_UP(XSAVE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE));
> > >       vcpu_args_set(vcpu, 3, amx_cfg, tiledata, xstate);
> > >
> > > +     int iter = 0;
> >
> > If we want to retain "tracing" of guest syncs, I vote to provide the information
> > from the guest, otherwise I'll end up counting GUEST_SYNC() calls on my fingers
> > (and run out of fingers) :-D.
> 
> I had a similar idea, but I was too lazy to implement it because for a
> very linear test such as this one, "12n" in vi does wonders...
> 
> > E.g. if we wrap all GUEST_SYNC() calls in a macro, we can print the line number
> > without having to hardcode sync point numbers.
> 
> ... but there are actually better reasons than laziness and linearity
> to keep the simple "iter++".
> 
> First, while using line numbers has the advantage of zero maintenance,
> the disadvantage is that they change all the time as you're debugging.
> So you are left slightly puzzled if the number changed because the
> test passed or because of the extra debugging code you added.

True.  I'm good with the current patch.

> Second, the iteration number is probably more useful to identify the
> places at which the VM was reentered (which are where the iteration
> number changes), than to identify the specific GUEST_SYNC that failed;
> from that perspective there's not much difference between line
> numbers, manually-numbered sync points, or incrementing a counter in
> main().