On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 11:38 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2022, Vishal Annapurve wrote: > > This is much sleeker and will avoid hacking KVM for testing. Only > > caveat here is that these tests will not be able to exercise implicit > > conversion path if we go this route. > > Yeah, I think that's a perfectly fine tradeoff. Implicit conversion isn't strictly > a UPM feature, e.g. if TDX and SNP "architecturally" disallowed implicit conversions, > then KVM wouldn't need to support implicit conversions at all, i.e. that testing can > be punted to SNP and/or TDX selftests. Ack. Will address this feedback in the next series.
