MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221212183720.4062037-1-vipinsh@google.com> <20221212183720.4062037-13-vipinsh@google.com>
 <Y9r0q9cuK/ifu+OW@google.com> <CAHVum0fEmEAQSxozb1BTTy-d3UGrsvhjt8V5FXQPrX5wOYqpPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y9wGQx89zI3TMU1Y@google.com> <CAHVum0dFG6gFTQ=JzMkX5Yw-BO7jtUEQyVww6TpN9wk_hQMpqw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHVum0dFG6gFTQ=JzMkX5Yw-BO7jtUEQyVww6TpN9wk_hQMpqw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 3 Feb 2023 14:08:26 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHVum0cDxK=wmd+UB9meZVm5h3tcGdkDJL=fK_jx19NhfikBSg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 12/13] KVM: selftests: Make vCPU exit reason test
 assertion common.
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     pbonzini@redhat.com, vkuznets@redhat.com, dmatlack@google.com,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        m Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
        Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
        Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 10:59 AM Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 10:51 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 02, 2023, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 3:24 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> > > > I love the cleanup, but in the future, please don't squeeze KVM-wide changes in
> > > > the middle of an otherwise arch-specific series unless it's absolutely necessary.
> > > > I get why you added the macro before copy-pasting more code into a new test, but
> > > > the unfortunate side effect is that complicates grabbing the entire series.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Make sense. So what is preferable:
> > > 1. Make the big cleanup identified during a series as the last patches
> > > in that series?
> > > 2. Have two series and big cleanups rebased on top of the initial series?
> > >
> > > Or, both 1 & 2 are acceptable depending on the cleanup?
> >
> >   3. Post the cleanup independently, but make a note so that maintainers know
> >      that there may be conflicts and/or missed cleanup opportunities.
> >
Small question:
Will it be fine if I use the current kvm/queue head or do you prefer
if I take one of your kvm-x86/linux branches?