On 12/6/22 19:20, Mark Brown wrote:
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.
Yeah, the right solution is simply to merge selftests changes separately
from the rest and use topic branches.
We will have more friction of this kind if we succeed in making more KVM
code multi-architecture, so let's just treat selftests as the more
innocuous drill...
Paolo
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
