Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-103679-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:40:44 -0700
In-Reply-To: <ZfDeohmtLXERhyzC@google.com>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20240308223702.1350851-1-seanjc@google.com> <20240308223702.1350851-7-seanjc@google.com>
 <5e302bfa-19a8-4849-82d0-0adada3e8041@redhat.com> <ZfDeohmtLXERhyzC@google.com>
Message-ID: <ZfNErIqnETakZxli@google.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] KVM: x86: Selftests changes for 6.9
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 3/8/24 23:36, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > Add SEV(-ES) smoke tests, and start building out infrastructure to utilize the
> > > "core" selftests harness and TAP.  In addition to provide TAP output, using the
> > > infrastructure reduces boilerplate code and allows running all testscases in a
> > > test, even if a previous testcase fails (compared with today, where a testcase
> > > failure is terminal for the entire test).
> > 
> > Hmm, now I remember why I would have liked to include the AMD SEV changes in
> > 6.9 --- because they get rid of the "subtype" case in selftests.
> > 
> > It's not a huge deal, it's just a nicer API, and anyway I'm not going to ask
> > you to rebase on top of my changes; and you couldn't have known that when we
> > talked about it last Wednesday, since the patches are for the moment closely
> > guarded on my hard drive.
> 
> Heh, though it is obvious in hindsight.
>  
> > But it may still be a good reason to sneak those as well in the second week
> > of the 6.9 merge window, though I'm not going to make a fuss if you disagree.
> 
> My preference is still to wait.  I would be very surprised if the subtype code
> gains any users in the next few weeks, i.e. I doubt it'll be any harder to rip
> out the subtype code in 6.9 versus 6.10.
> 
> On the other hand, waiting until 6.10 for the SEV changes will give us a bit more
> time to see how they interact with the SNP and TDX series, e.g. in the off chance
> there's something in the uAPI that could be done better for SNP and/or TDX.

Though I'll add the belated disclaimer that performance testing is not my strong
suit...