linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 03/14] KVM: selftests: Return a value from vcpu_get

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]

Message-ID: <ZyUARgGV4G6DOrRL@linux.dev>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 09:22:30 -0700
From: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
	Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
	Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>,
	James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/14] KVM: selftests: Return a value from
 vcpu_get_reg() instead of using an out-param

On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 09:16:42AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2024, Oliver Upton wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 08:59:16AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > Can you instead just push out a topic branch and let the affected
> > > > maintainers deal with it? This is the usual way we handle conflicts
> > > > between trees...
> > > 
> > > That'd work too, but as you note below, doing that now throws a wrench in things
> > > because essentially all arch maintainers would need merge that topic branch,
> > > otherwise linux-next would end up in the same state.
> > 
> > TBH, I'm quite happy with that. Recent history has not been particularly
> > convinincing to me that folks are actually testing arm64, let alone
> > compiling for it when applying selftests patches.
> 
> FWIW, I did compile all patches on all KVM architectures, including selftests.
> But my base obviously didn't include the kvm-arm64 branch :-/

Oh, that rip wasn't aimed at you, commit 76f972c2cfdf ("KVM: selftests: Fix build
on architectures other than x86_64") just came to mind.

> One thing I'll add to my workflow would be to do a local merge (and smoke test)
> of linux-next into kvm-x86 next before pushing it out.  This isn't the only snafu
> this cycle where such a sanity check would have saved me and others a bit of pain.

Eh, shit happens, that's what -next is for :)

The only point I wanted to make was that it is perfectly fine by me to
spread the workload w/ a topic branch if things blow up sometime after
your changes show up in -next.

-- 
Thanks,
Oliver