Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 4/14/20 11:30 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >> Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> On 4/14/20 10:01 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >>>> Also, this patch could've been split. >>> I can divide it 2 parts: >>> 1. support for logical destination mode. >>> 2. support for physical destination mode. I can also fix the above issue in >>> this patch itself. >>> Does that make sense? >> Too late, it's already commited :-) I just meant to say that >> e.g. spinlock part could've been split into its own patch, unittests.cfg >> - another one,... > > Ah, I see. I will be more careful. > For now, I will just move the physical destination mode test back under > the check. Will that be acceptable as a standalone patch? This is already in Paolo's patch: https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/87zhbexh3v.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#m9791cd50a9d82fabdaddcb9259d14df3b89ed250 > In between I have a question is it normal for test_ioapic_self_reconfigure() > to fail when executed with irqchip split? > If so do we expect that it will leave the VM in some sort of dirty state > that causes the following test to fail? Not sure I got your question but IMO when someone does ./run_tests.sh all tests are supposed to pass -- unless there is a bug in KVM (e.g. the person is running an old kernel). In case we're seeing failures (or, even worse, hangs) with the latest upstream kernel -- something is broken, either KVM or kvm-unit-tests. -- Vitaly
