On Mon, 19 Sep 2022 17:38:14 +0100, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Sep 2022 18:09:17 +0000, Ricardo Koller wrote: > > > This series adds a new aarch64 selftest for testing stage 2 fault handling for > > > various combinations of guest accesses (e.g., write, S1PTW), backing sources > > > (e.g., anon), and types of faults (e.g., read on hugetlbfs with a hole, write > > > on a readonly memslot). Each test tries a different combination and then checks > > > that the access results in the right behavior (e.g., uffd faults with the right > > > address and write/read flag). Some interesting combinations are: > > > > > > [...] > > > > Given how long this has been around, I've picked this series up, applying > > Oliver's fixes in the process. > > Any chance this can be undone? A big reason why this is at v6 is > because of the common API changes, and due to KVM Forum I've > effectively had three working days since this was posted, and others > have probably had even less, i.e. lack of reviews on v6 isn't > because no one cares. Hey, I'm still not back at work, and won't be for another week! But fair enough, if there is going to be a respin, I'd rather see that (and I'm less hung up on tests having been in -next for some time before sending out a PR that eventually reaches Linus). > It's not the end of the world if we have to fix things up on top, > but we'd avoid a decent amount of churn if we can instead unwind and > do a v7. No skin off my nose, as this leaves on its own topic branch. Now dropped. M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
