Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 1 Apr 2020 08:38:17 +0200
From:   Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
To:     Wainer dos Santos Moschetta <wainersm@redhat.com>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        david@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests: kvm: Add mem_slot_test test
Message-ID: <20200401063817.gb5f4ah45qvtqkhw@kamzik.brq.redhat.com>
References: <20200330204310.21736-1-wainersm@redhat.com>
 <20200330204310.21736-3-wainersm@redhat.com>
 <20200331081632.ithcwuzjyjhiwphy@kamzik.brq.redhat.com>
 <b261aa4f-87d5-2ac8-9f66-9f10e1a0803a@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b261aa4f-87d5-2ac8-9f66-9f10e1a0803a@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 06:42:21PM -0300, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta wrote:
> It would be nice to exercise the code by adding slots with different page
> flags. But for this test that simple checks the limit, the use of
> KVM_MEM_READONLY is enough. I will change it on v2.

It would be good to test more memslot error conditions as well. Do you plan
to expand on this test?

Thanks,
drew