On Sun, Sep 15, 2024, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 4:54 PM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 3:13 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > There's a trivial (and amusing) conflict with KVM s390 in the selftests pull > > > request (we both added "config" to the .gitignore, within a few days of each > > > other, after the goof being around for a good year or more). > > > > > > Note, the pull requests are relative to v6.11-rc4. I got a late start, and for > > > some reason thought kvm/next would magically end up on rc4 or later. > > > > > > Note #2, I had a brainfart and put the testcase for verifying KVM's fastpath > > > correctly exits to userspace when needed in selftests, whereas the actual KVM > > > fix is in misc. So if you run KVM selftests in the middle of pulling everything, > > > expect the debug_regs test to fail. > > > > Pulled all, thanks. Due to combination of being recovering from flu + > > preparing to travel I will probably spend not be able to run tests for > > a few days, but everything should be okay for the merge window. > > Hmm, I tried running tests in a slightly non-standard way (compiling > the will-be-6.12 code on a 6.10 kernel and installing the module) > because that's what I could do for now, and I'm getting system hangs > in a few tests. The first ones that hung were > > hyperv_ipi > hyperv_tlb_flush This one failing gives me hope that it's some weird combination of 6.10 and the for-6.12 code. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any relevant changes. FWIW, I haven't been able to reproduce any failures with kvm/next+kvm-x86/next, on AMD or Intel. > xapic_ipi_test > > And of course, this is on a machine that doesn't have serial > console... :( I think for now I'll push the non-x86 stuff to kvm/next > and then either bisect or figure out how to run tests normally.
