Sender: Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56689a97-79bf-9669-3c78-1704a98ec445@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Dec 2021 15:55:06 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.2.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/13] KVM: selftests: add SEV boot tests
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>,
        Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@google.com>
Cc:     linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        Nathan Tempelman <natet@google.com>,
        Marc Orr <marcorr@google.com>,
        Steve Rutherford <srutherford@google.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Varad Gautam <varad.gautam@suse.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
        Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Krish Sadhukhan <krish.sadhukhan@oracle.com>,
        Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>
References: <20211216171358.61140-1-michael.roth@amd.com>
 <20211216171358.61140-9-michael.roth@amd.com> <Yb/hGzeiRi0AwfV6@google.com>
 <20211221154036.ivef7wuoblavlmsf@amd.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20211221154036.ivef7wuoblavlmsf@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 12/21/21 16:40, Michael Roth wrote:
>> Probably, you want to use macros to represent those states which should
>> make it more clear. Otherwise, it is quite cumbersome for readers to
>> remember the meaning (or state) of 100/101/102.
> I agree with that approach in general, but in this case it's a bit
> awkward since, these aren't necessarily similarly grouped tests where each
> test falls under a certain category of TEST_GROUP_x where a macro would
> provide additional information about the nature of the tests related to a
> particular SYNC() call, in some cases it's an aggregate of multiple
> things, for instance...

Indeed, these are just numbers that match between guest_test_common and 
test_common.  It's not too hard to follow if you look at the two 
functions side-by-side.

Paolo