On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 06:10:32PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote: > Alternatively, we could have a dedicated selftests/kvm tree (or branch)? > I almost suggested doing that on multiple occasions this cycle, but ultimately > decided not to because it would effectively mean splitting series that touch KVM > and selftests into different trees, which would create a different kind of > dependency hell. Or maybe a hybrid approach where series that only (or mostly?) > touch selftests go into a dedicated tree? Some other subsystems do have a separate branch for kselftests. One fairly common occurrence is that the selftests branch ends up failing to build independently because someone adds new ABI together with a selftest but the patches adding the ABI don't end up on the same branch as the tests which try to use them. That is of course resolvable but it's a common friction point.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
