lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] Documentation/process: Add a maintainer handbook for KVM x86
On 22.02.2023 22:25, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>> On 17.02.2023 23:54, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>> +SDM and APM References
>>> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> +Much of KVM's code base is directly tied to architectural behavior defined in
>>> +Intel's Software Development Manual (SDM) and AMD's Architecture Programmer’s
>>> +Manual (APM). Use of "Intel's SDM" and "AMD's APM", or even just "SDM" or
>>> +"APM", without additional context is a-ok.
>>> +
>>> +Do not reference specific sections, tables, figures, etc. by number, especially
>>> +not in comments. Instead, copy-paste the relevant snippet (if warranted), and
>>> +reference sections/tables/figures by name.
>>
>> This says do "copy-paste the relevant snippet"...
>>
>>> The layouts of the SDM and APM are
>>> +constantly changing, and so the numbers/labels aren't stable/consistent.
>>> +
>>> +Generally speaking, do not copy-paste SDM or APM snippets into
>>> comments.
>>
>> ...but this seems to say "don't do that".
>
> Yeah, that didn't come out right.
>
>> More specific guidance would probably help here.
>
> Is this better?
>
> Do not reference specific sections, tables, figures, etc. by number, especially
> not in comments. Instead, if necessary (see below), copy-paste the relevant
> snippet and reference sections/tables/figures by name. The layouts of the SDM
> and APM are constantly changing, and so the numbers/labels aren't stable.
>
> Generally speaking, do not explicitly reference or copy-paste from the SDM or
> APM in comments. With few exceptions, KVM *must* honor architectural behavior,
> therefore it's implied that KVM behavior is emulating SDM and/or APM behavior.
> Note, referencing the SDM/APM in changelogs to justify the change and provide
> context is perfectly ok and encouraged.

Yes, I think the new wording conveys the underlying idea better, thanks.

>>> +Testing
>>> +-------
>>> +At a bare minimum, *all* patches in a series must build cleanly for KVM_INTEL=m
>>> +KVM_AMD=m, and KVM_WERROR=y. Building every possible combination of Kconfigs
>>> +isn't feasible, but the more the merrier. KVM_SMM, KVM_XEN, PROVE_LOCKING, and
>>> +X86_64 are particularly interesting knobs to turn.
>>> +
>>> +Running KVM selftests and KVM-unit-tests is also mandatory (and stating the
>>> +obvious, the tests need to pass).
>>
>> I would add an exception here from mandatory testing for changes that
>> obviously have negligible probability of affecting runtime behavior.
>>
>> For example: patches that modify just code comments or documentation.
>
> Agreed, will add.
>
> Regarding documentation, I think I'll also add a requirement of 'make htmldocs'
> without warnings for non-trivial docs changes. It's all too easy to write buggy
> ReST "code" that looks correct as raw text, e.g. the whole double-colon thing.

Good idea to mention that, I totally forgot that ReST docs need "compiling", too.

>>> When possible and relevant, testing on both
>>> +Intel and AMD is strongly preferred. Booting an actual VM is encouraged, but
>>> +not mandatory.
>>> +
>>> +For changes that touch KVM's shadow paging code, running with TDP (EPT/NPT)
>>> +disabled is mandatory. For changes that affect common KVM MMU code, running
>>> +with TDP disabled is strongly encouraged. For all other changes, if the code
>>> +being modified depends on and/or interacts with a module param, testing with
>>> +the relevant settings is mandatory.
>>> +
>>> +Note, KVM selftests and KVM-unit-tests do have known failures. If you suspect
>>> +a failure is not due to your changes, verify that the *exact same* failure
>>> +occurs with and without your changes.
>>> +
>>> +If you can't fully test a change, e.g. due to lack of hardware, clearly state
>>> +what level of testing you were able to do, e.g. in the cover letter.
>>> +
>> (...)
>>
>> Thanks for preparing such a detailed handbook Sean.
>>
>> However, having so many rules might seem intimidating for newcomers, and
>> deter them from contributing out of fear that they'll be screamed at for
>> accidentally breaking some obscure rule.
>>
>> That's especially true for unpaid volunteers that might become
>> professional kernel developers one day if their learning curve isn't
>> made too steep.
>>
>> Maybe have a paragraph or two that, despite all these rules, KVM x86
>> strives to be a welcome community, encouraging newcomers and understanding
>> their beginner mistakes (or so)?
>
> I like that idea a lot, I'll add a section at the very top.
>
> Thanks much!

Thanks,
Maciej

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 00:33    [W:0.048 / U:0.544 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site