On 23/05/2019 12.56, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 01:12:53PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: >> The test is an adaption of the same test for x86. Note that there >> are some differences in the way how s390x deals with the kvm_valid_regs >> in struct kvm_run, so some of the tests had to be removed. Also this >> test is not using the ucall() interface on s390x yet (which would need >> some work to be usable on s390x), so it simply drops out of the VM with >> a diag 0x501 breakpoint instead. >> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> MAINTAINERS | 1 + >> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile | 2 + >> .../selftests/kvm/s390x/sync_regs_test.c | 151 ++++++++++++++++++ >> 3 files changed, 154 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/sync_regs_test.c >> >> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS >> index 514d1f88ee26..68f76ee9e821 100644 >> --- a/MAINTAINERS >> +++ b/MAINTAINERS >> @@ -8645,6 +8645,7 @@ F: arch/s390/include/asm/gmap.h >> F: arch/s390/include/asm/kvm* >> F: arch/s390/kvm/ >> F: arch/s390/mm/gmap.c >> +F: tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/ >> F: tools/testing/selftests/kvm/*/s390x/ > > Do we need these lines added? We have tools/testing/selftests/kvm/ in the > common KVM section already. If we do want to specify them specifically, > then I guess we need x86 and arm MAINTAINERS updates as well. I think they are helpful in the sense that the s390x maintainers get CC:-ed on related patches as well, and if I've got Christian right, he's interested in getting informed here. For Arm related patches, I guess you should ask the Arm maintainers first. For x86, it does not really matter, since the maintainers are the same. Thomas
