Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751036Ab3DNJbV (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Apr 2013 05:31:21 -0400 Received: from mail-la0-f45.google.com ([209.85.215.45]:58982 "EHLO mail-la0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750789Ab3DNJbT (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Apr 2013 05:31:19 -0400 Message-ID: <516A7760.7030907@kernel.org> Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 12:31:12 +0300 From: Pekka Enberg User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Borislav Petkov CC: Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Sasha Levin , Fengguang Wu , lkml , x86-ml Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Add a Kconfig shortcut for a kvm-bootable kernel References: <20130412181956.GA13099@pd.tnic> In-Reply-To: <20130412181956.GA13099@pd.tnic> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1503 Lines: 34 Hello, On 4/12/13 9:19 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > so I'm currently experimenting with my randconfig build scripts and > thought that maybe it would be a cool thing to not only do the random > builds only but also boot-test them in kvm. Which reminded me that we > have that KVMTOOL_TEST_ENABLE config option in the kvmtool with which we > can select all the stuff needed to boot the kernel in kvm. > > So I copied it. I now have an all.config in the repo with > CONFIG_KVM_TEST_ENABLE=y in it so that the random builds can have the > required support. > > So what do people think? > > It is pretty helpful for such testing; AFAICT Fengguang is doing his > testing with kvm so he probably could use it too. And regardless, there > are more and more reasons to boot the kernel in kvm so having a single > option which selects the needed support makes more sense with time. > > And I haven't picked up the 'make kvmconfig' functionality because it > is not strictly needed (yet) but it wouldn't hurt if we took it because > someone has a good reason for needing it. I obviously support having something like this in mainline. I wonder though if we could just call this "default standalone KVM guest config" instead of emphasizing testing angle. Pekka -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/