On Thu, 2023-02-09 at 17:27 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2023, Robert Hoo wrote: > > On Thu, 2023-02-09 at 14:15 +0800, Chao Gao wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 10:40:13AM +0800, Robert Hoo wrote: > > > Please add a kvm-unit-test or kselftest for LAM, particularly for > > > operations (e.g., canonical check for supervisor pointers, toggle > > > CR4.LAM_SUP) which aren't covered by the test in Kirill's series. > > > > OK, I can explore for kvm-unit-test in separate patch set. > > Please make tests your top priority. Without tests, I am not going > to spend any > time reviewing this series, or any other hardware enabling > series[*]. I don't > expect KVM specific tests for everything, i.e. it's ok to to rely > things like > running VMs that utilize LAM and/or running LAM selftests in the > guest, but I do > want a reasonably thorough explanation of how all the test pieces fit > together to > validate KVM's implementation. Sure, and ack on unit test is part of development work. This patch set had always been unit tested before sent out, i.e. "running LAM selftests in guest" on both ept=Y/N. CR4.LAM_SUP, as Chao pointed out, could not be covered by kselftest, I may explore it in kvm-unit-test. Or, would you mind that separate CR4.LAM_SUP enabling in another patch set? > > [*] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y+Uq0JOEmmdI0YwA@xxxxxxxxxx
