Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 8 Jul 2021 10:21:09 -0700
From:   Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] KVM: x86: Use kernel x86 cpuid utilities in KVM
 selftests
Message-ID: <YOc0BUrL6VMw78nF@google.com>
References: <20210422005626.564163-1-ricarkol@google.com>
 <c4524e4a-55c7-66f9-25d6-d397f11d25a8@redhat.com>
 <YIm7iWxggvoN9riz@google.com>
 <CALMp9eSfpdWF0OROsOqxohxMoFrrY=Gt7FYfB1_31D7no4JYLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <16823e91-5caf-f52e-e0dc-28ebb9a87b47@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <16823e91-5caf-f52e-e0dc-28ebb9a87b47@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 06:50:41PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 29/06/21 19:28, Jim Mattson wrote:
> > > Thanks. I was thinking about kvm-unit-tests, but the issue is that it
> > > would also be a copy. And just like with kernel headers, it would be
> > > ideal to keep them in-sync. The advantage of the kernel headers is that
> > > it's much easier to check and fix diffs with them. On the other hand, as
> > > you say, there would not be any #ifdef stuff with kvm=unit-tests. Please
> > > let me know what you think.
> > 
> > I think the kvm-unit-tests implementation is superior to the kernel
> > implementation, but that's probably because I suggested it. Still, I
> > think there's an argument to be made that selftests, unlike
> > kvm-unit-tests, are part of the kernel distribution and should be
> > consistent with the kernel where possible.
> > 
> > Paolo?
> 
> I also prefer the kvm-unit-tests implementation, for what it's worth...
> Let's see what the code looks like?

I'm not sure I understand the question. You mean: let's see how this
looks using kvm-unit-tests headers? If that's the case I can work on a
v3 using kvm-unit-tests.

Thanks,
Ricardo

> 
> Paolo
>