[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <819a6bf5-438d-44ae-a730-77252e92080b@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2026 17:00:55 +0000
From: Ben Horgan <ben.horgan@....com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Oliver Upton <oupton@...nel.org>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] KVM: selftests: arm64: Skip all 32 bit IDs when
set_id_regs is aarch64 only
Hi Mark,
On 1/5/26 16:45, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2026 at 02:50:07PM +0000, Ben Horgan wrote:
>> On 12/19/25 19:28, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>>> + if (aarch64_only && sys_reg_CRm(reg_id) < 4) {
>>> + ksft_test_result_skip("%s value seen in guest\n",
>>> + get_reg_name(reg_id));
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>> +
>
>> Unnecessary? The decision for which regs are testing is made in
>> guest_code().
>
> The guest code has a fixed list of registers it reads blindly and we
> skip the write for these so our expected value won't be something we
> explicitly set. The actual test is done here in the host code and it
> seems both more maintainable to keep the skip adjacent to the live test
> and clearer to be more explicit about nothing actually being tested.
Thanks for the explanation, it seems like a sensible decision.
Ben
Powered by blists - more mailing lists