Message-ID: <Y/VhBo9ek1PPBEb5@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Feb 2023 16:25:42 -0800
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sagi Shahar <sagis@...gle.com>,
        Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
        Peter Shier <pshier@...gle.com>,
        Anish Ghulati <aghulati@...gle.com>,
        Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
        James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
        Anish Moorthy <amoorthy@...gle.com>,
        Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
        Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@...gle.com>,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
        Aaron Lewis <aaronlewis@...gle.com>,
        Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@....com>,
        Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>, Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>,
        Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>,
        Chenyi Qiang <chenyi.qiang@...el.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@...hat.com>,
        Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>,
        Guang Zeng <guang.zeng@...el.com>,
        Hou Wenlong <houwenlong.hwl@...group.com>,
        Jiaxi Chen <jiaxi.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...el.com>,
        Junaid Shahid <junaids@...gle.com>,
        Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>,
        Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com>,
        Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>,
        Li RongQing <lirongqing@...du.com>,
        "Maciej S . Szmigiero" <maciej.szmigiero@...cle.com>,
        Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>,
        Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
        Michal Luczaj <mhal@...x.co>,
        Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@...gle.com>,
        Nikunj A Dadhania <nikunj@....com>,
        Paul Durrant <pdurrant@...zon.com>,
        Peng Hao <flyingpenghao@...il.com>,
        Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Robert Hoo <robert.hu@...ux.intel.com>,
        Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com>,
        Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>,
        Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@...el.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Documentation/process: Add a maintainer handbook for
 KVM x86

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023, Yu Zhang wrote:
> Thank you so much, Sean, for such a detailed guidance!
> 
> Some questions below:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 02:54:49PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Add a KVM x86 doc to the subsystem/maintainer handbook section to explain
> > how KVM x86 (currently) operates as a sub-subsystem, and to soapbox on
> > the rules and expectations for contributing to KVM x86.
> 
> It's a fantastic doc! Also, many good requirements can be common in KVM, not
> just KVM x86(e.g. the comment, changelog format, the testing requirement
> etc.). Could we be greedier to ask our KVM maintainers for a generic handbook
> of KVM, and maybe different sections for specific arches, which describe their
> specific requirements(the base trees and branches, the maintaining processes
> etc.)? :)

At some point, yes, but my strong preference is to document the x86 side of things
and then work from there.  For KVM x86, I can mostly just say "these are the rules".
Same goes for the other KVM arch maintainers (for their areas).

Incorporating all of KVM would require a much more collaborative effort, which isn't
a bad thing, but it will take more time and effort.  And IMO, KVM x86 needs this
typ eof documentation a lot more than the other KVM architectures, i.e. pushing out
KVM x86 documentation in order to go for more comprehensive documentation is not a
good tradeoff.

> > +Trees
> > +-----
> > +KVM x86 is currently in a transition period from being part of the main KVM
> > +tree, to being "just another KVM arch".  As such, KVM x86 is split across the
> > +main KVM tree, ``git.kernel.org/pub/scm/virt/kvm/kvm.git``, and a KVM x86
> > +specific tree, ``github.com/kvm-x86/linux.git``.
> 
> Does other arch also have a specific tree?

Yes.

> If a patch series touches multiple archs(though the chance could be very
> low), I guess that patch set should still be based on the main KVM tree? The
> master branch or the next branch?

Hmm, good question.  Using kvm-86/next is likely the best answer in most cases.
kvm/master is usually a bad choice because it won't have _any_ changes for the next
release, i.e. using it as a base is more likely to yield conflicts.  Similarly,
kvm/queue and kvm/next are unlikely to have more relevant changes than kvm-x86/next.

If there are non-trivial conflicts with multiple architectures then coordination
between maintainers will be required no matter what base is used.  And I would
expect people sending those types of series to have enough experience to be able
to make a judgment call and/or engage with maintainers to figure out the best solution.

I'll rework the "Base Tree/Branch" to explicitly state that any series that primarily
targets x86 should be based on kvm-x86/next, but with a "use common sense" qualifier.

> > +Co-Posting Tests
> > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > +KVM selftests that are associated with KVM changes, e.g. regression tests for
> > +bug fixes, should be posted along with the KVM changes as a single series.
> > +
> > +KVM-unit-tests should *always* be posted separately.  Tools, e.g. b4 am, don't
> > +know that KVM-unit-tests is a separate repository and get confused when patches
> > +in a series apply on different trees.  To tie KVM-unit-tests patches back to
> > +KVM patches, first post the KVM changes and then provide a lore Link: to the
> > +KVM patch/series in the KVM-unit-tests patch(es).
> 
> I wonder, for KVM bugzilla to report a bug, or for our QAs to perform regular
> tests using KVM selftests/KVM-unit-tests, which tree/branch is more reasonable
> to be based on?
> 
> E.g., I saw some bugzilla issues earlier, reporting failures of some unit tests,
> did some investigation, yet to find those failures were just because the corresponding
> KVM patches had not been merged yet. 
> 
> Maybe we also should take care of the timings of the merging of KVM patches and
> the test patches?

I really don't want to hold up KVM-unit-test patches waiting for KVM fixes to be
merged.  KUT is already woefully under-maintained, artificially holding up patches
will only make things worse.  And simply waiting for patches to land in KVM doesn't
necessarily solve things either, e.g. if the fixes land in kvm/master mid-cycle
then running against kvm/next will continue to fail.  Waiting also doesn't help
people running KUT against older kernels, e.g. for qualifying stable kernels.

I completely understand the pain, but unfortunately no one has come up with an
elegant, low-maintenance solution (this problem has been discussed multiple times
in the past).

> Two examples(I'm sure there're more :)): 
> 1> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216812
> 2> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216725
> 
> 
> B.R.
> Yu
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists