On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 9:15 AM Joerg Roedel <jroedel@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Marc, > > On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 07:57:39AM -0800, Marc Orr wrote: > > Regarding code review and testing, I can help with the following: > > - Compare the patches being pulled into kvm-unit-tests to what's in > > the Linux kernel and add my Reviewed-by tags if I don't see any > > meaningful discrepancies. > > - Test the entire series on Google's setup, which doesn't use QEMU and > > add my Tested-by tag accordingly. My previous Tested-by tags were on > > individual patches. I have not yet tested the entire series. > > > > Please let me know if this is useful. If not, I wouldn't spend the time :-). > > I think it is definitly useful to run this in Googles environment too > to get it tested and possible bugs ruled out. That can only help the > upstream integration of these patches :) SGTM. Thank you for the feedback. > Varad discussed an idea with me today where the core VC handling code > could be put into a library and used by the kernel and unit-tests and > possibly others as well. The has the benefit that the kvm-unit-tests > would also test the kernels VC handler paths. But it is probably > something for the future. Yes, I like this idea a lot. This is basically what our internal test framework does. So if we can eventually convert this code to be a #VC as a library, that can be used from kvm-unit-tests, Linux kernel, UEFI, etc., that would be great.
