linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v4 12/13] KVM: selftests: Make vCPU exit reason test assertion common.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 3 Feb 2023 14:08:26 -0800
From:   Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     pbonzini@...hat.com, vkuznets@...hat.com, dmatlack@...gle.com,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        m Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
        Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
        Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 12/13] KVM: selftests: Make vCPU exit reason test
 assertion common.

On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 10:59 AM Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 10:51 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 02, 2023, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 3:24 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > > I love the cleanup, but in the future, please don't squeeze KVM-wide changes in
> > > > the middle of an otherwise arch-specific series unless it's absolutely necessary.
> > > > I get why you added the macro before copy-pasting more code into a new test, but
> > > > the unfortunate side effect is that complicates grabbing the entire series.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Make sense. So what is preferable:
> > > 1. Make the big cleanup identified during a series as the last patches
> > > in that series?
> > > 2. Have two series and big cleanups rebased on top of the initial series?
> > >
> > > Or, both 1 & 2 are acceptable depending on the cleanup?
> >
> >   3. Post the cleanup independently, but make a note so that maintainers know
> >      that there may be conflicts and/or missed cleanup opportunities.
> >
Small question:
Will it be fine if I use the current kvm/queue head or do you prefer
if I take one of your kvm-x86/linux branches?