[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Sean Christopherson] [PATCH v2 000/144] KVM: selftests: Overhaul APIs, purge VCPU_ID
On 3 Jun 2022 00:41, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Overhaul KVM's selftest APIs to get selftests to a state where adding new
> features and writing tests is less painful/disgusting.
> Patches 1 fixes a goof in kvm/queue and should be squashed.
> I would really, really, really like to get this queued up sooner than
> later, or maybe just thrown into a separate selftests-specific branch that
> folks can develop against. Rebasing is tedious, frustrating, and time
> consuming. And spoiler alert, there's another 42 x86-centric patches
> inbound that builds on this series to clean up CPUID related crud...
> The primary theme is to stop treating tests like second class citizens.
> Stop hiding vcpu, kvm_vm, etc... There's no sensitive data/constructs, and
> the encapsulation has led to really, really bad and difficult to maintain
> code. E.g. having to pass around the VM just to call a vCPU ioctl(),
> arbitrary non-zero vCPU IDs, tests having to care about the vCPU ID in the
> first place, etc...
> The other theme in the rework is to deduplicate code and try to set us
> up for success in the future. E.g. provide macros/helpers instead of
> spamming CTRL-C => CTRL-V (see the -1k LoC), structure the VM creation
> APIs to build on one another, etc...
> The absurd patch count (as opposed to just ridiculous) is due to converting
> each test away from using hardcoded vCPU IDs in a separate patch. The vast
> majority of those patches probably aren't worth reviewing in depth, the
> changes are mostly mechanical in nature.
> However, _running_ non-x86 tests (or tests that have unique non-x86
> behavior) would be extremely valuable. All patches have been compile tested
> on x86, arm, risc-v, and s390, but I've only run the tests on x86. Based on
> my track record for the x86+common tests, I will be very, very surprised if
> I didn't break any of the non-x86 tests, e.g. pthread_create()'s 'void *'
> param tripped me up multiple times.


I just checked your series on s390x, and as far as I can see, the tests
still work fine with the patches applied. Thus:

Tested-by: Thomas Huth <>

 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-09 10:47    [W:0.856 / U:2.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site