Hi, On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 02:03:54PM +0200, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > On Tue, 2022-02-08 at 14:21 +0200, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > Those are few kvm unit tests tha I developed. > > > > Best regards, > > Maxim Levitsky > > > > Maxim Levitsky (7): > > pmu_lbr: few fixes > > svm: Fix reg_corruption test, to avoid timer interrupt firing in later > > tests. > > svm: NMI is an "exception" and not interrupt in x86 land > > svm: intercept shutdown in all svm tests by default > > svm: add SVM_BARE_VMRUN > > svm: add tests for LBR virtualization > > svm: add tests for case when L1 intercepts various hardware interrupts > > (an interrupt, SMI, NMI), but lets L2 control either EFLAG.IF or GIF > > > > lib/x86/processor.h | 1 + > > x86/pmu_lbr.c | 6 + > > x86/svm.c | 41 +--- > > x86/svm.h | 63 ++++++- > > x86/svm_tests.c | 447 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > x86/unittests.cfg | 3 +- > > 6 files changed, 521 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-) > > > > -- > > 2.26.3 > > > > > Any update on these patches? It is possible that because you haven't sent the patches to the x86 maintainer (as per the MAINTAINERS file), this series has gone unnoticed. Also, each patch should start with "kvm-unit-tests PATCH" (have a look at the README file), so people can easily tell them apart from KVM patches, which go to the same mailing list. You could try resending the entire series to the x86 mailing list and to the relevant maintainers. To resend them, the convention is to modify the subject prefix to "kvm-unit-tests PATCH RESEND" and send them without any changes (though you can mention in the cover letter why you resent the series). Hope this helps! Thanks, Alex > > Best regards, > Maxim Levitsky >
