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:   Wed, 2 Aug 2023 14:31:29 -0700
In-Reply-To: <ZMq0nYYDbOX1cOKN@google.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20230712075910.22480-1-thuth@redhat.com> <20230712075910.22480-3-thuth@redhat.com>
 <ZMq0nYYDbOX1cOKN@google.com>
Message-ID: <ZMrLMYxj3s+vHGrQ@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] KVM: selftests: x86: Use TAP interface in the
 sync_regs test
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 02, 2023, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Oh, and no need to post "KVM: selftests: Rename the ASSERT_EQ macro" in the next
> version, I'm planning on grabbing that one straightaway.

After paging this all back in...

I would much prefer that we implement the KVM specific macros[*], e.g. KVM_ONE_VCPU_TEST(),
and build on top of those.  I'm definitely ok doing a "slow" conversion, i.e. starting
with a few easy tests.  IIRC at some point I said I strongly preferred an all-or-nothing
approach, but realistically I don't think we'll make progress anytime soon if we try to
boil the ocean.

But I do think we should spend the time to implement the infrastructure right away.  We
may end up having to tweak the infrastructure down the road, e.g. to convert other tests,
but I would rather do that then convert some tests twice.

[*] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y2v+B3xxYKJSM%2FfH@google.com