On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 06:50:41PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 29/06/21 19:28, Jim Mattson wrote: > > > Thanks. I was thinking about kvm-unit-tests, but the issue is that it > > > would also be a copy. And just like with kernel headers, it would be > > > ideal to keep them in-sync. The advantage of the kernel headers is that > > > it's much easier to check and fix diffs with them. On the other hand, as > > > you say, there would not be any #ifdef stuff with kvm=unit-tests. Please > > > let me know what you think. > > > > I think the kvm-unit-tests implementation is superior to the kernel > > implementation, but that's probably because I suggested it. Still, I > > think there's an argument to be made that selftests, unlike > > kvm-unit-tests, are part of the kernel distribution and should be > > consistent with the kernel where possible. > > > > Paolo? > > I also prefer the kvm-unit-tests implementation, for what it's worth... > Let's see what the code looks like? I'm not sure I understand the question. You mean: let's see how this looks using kvm-unit-tests headers? If that's the case I can work on a v3 using kvm-unit-tests. Thanks, Ricardo > > Paolo >
