[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86wmkby9wn.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 07:40:24 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
Cc: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
kernel@...labora.com,
kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] selftests: kvm: fix mkdir error when building for unsupported arch
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 23:15:44 +0100,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 09:33:17AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > And other KVM maintainers, the big question is: if we do the above, would now be
> > a decent time to bite the bullet and switch to the kernel's canonical arch paths,
> > i.e. arm64, s390, and x86? I feel like if we're ever going to get away from
> > using aarch64, x86_64, and s390x, this is as about a good of an opportunity as
> > we're going to get.
>
> I'm pretty much indifferent on the matter, but I won't complain if you
> send out a change for this.
Same here. Call it arm64 or aargh64, same difference. Whatever we
change, some people will moan anyway.
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists