Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 27 Oct 2022 15:44:24 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     "Wang, Wei W" <wei.w.wang@intel.com>
Cc:     David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
        "pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        "vipinsh@google.com" <vipinsh@google.com>,
        "ajones@ventanamicro.com" <ajones@ventanamicro.com>,
        "eric.auger@redhat.com" <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/18] KVM selftests code consolidation and cleanup
Message-ID: <Y1qnWFzekT27rYka@google.com>
References: <20221024113445.1022147-1-wei.w.wang@intel.com>
 <Y1mlJqKdFtlgG3jR@google.com>
 <DS0PR11MB63731F2B467D4084F5C8D9B5DC339@DS0PR11MB6373.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <DS0PR11MB63731F2B467D4084F5C8D9B5DC339@DS0PR11MB6373.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 27, 2022, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> On Thursday, October 27, 2022 5:23 AM, David Matlack:
> > I haven't dug too much into the actual code yet, but I have some high level
> > feedback based on a quick look through the series:
> > 
> >  - Use the format "KVM: selftests: <Decsription>" for the shortlog.
> 
> I know it's not common to see so far, but curious is this the required format?

It's definitely the preferred format.

> I didn't find where it's documented.

Heh, for all shortlog scopes, the "documentation" is `git log --pretty=oneline` :-)

> If it's indeed a requirement, probably we also need to enhance checkpatch.pl
> to detect this.

I like the idea in theory, but that'd be a daunting task to set up, and quite the
maintenance nightmare.  There are probably thousands of file => scope mappings
throughout the kernel, with any number of exceptions and arbitrary rules.

> If it's not required, I think it is more obvious to have /sub_field in the title,
> e.g. selftests/hardware_disable_test, to outline which specific part of
> selftests the patch is changing. (the selftests are growing larger with many
> usages independent of each other).

I agree that "KVM: selftests:" is a rather large umbrella, but it's not obvious
that "KVM: selfetest/<test>" is unequivocally better, e.g. if someone is making a
change to x86_64/vmx_exception_with_invalid_guest_state.c, the scope will be

  KVM: selftests/x86_64/vmx_exception_with_invalid_guest_state:

or 

  KVM: selftests/vmx_exception_with_invalid_guest_state:

which doesn't leave a whole lot of room for an actual shortlog.

When reviewing selftests patches, I do find myself pausing sometimes to see exactly
what file/test is being modified, but in almost all cases a quick glance at the
diffstat provides the answer.  And on the flip side, having all selftests patches
exactly match "KVM: selftests:" makes it super easy to identify selftest changes,
i.e. it's mostly a wash overall in terms of efficiency (for me at least).