[PATCH v3 03/14] KVM: selftests: Return a value from vcpu_get_reg() instead of using an out-param
Sean Christopherson
seanjc at google.com
Fri Nov 1 09:16:42 PDT 2024
On Fri, Nov 01, 2024, Oliver Upton wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 08:59:16AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > Can you instead just push out a topic branch and let the affected
> > > maintainers deal with it? This is the usual way we handle conflicts
> > > between trees...
> >
> > That'd work too, but as you note below, doing that now throws a wrench in things
> > because essentially all arch maintainers would need merge that topic branch,
> > otherwise linux-next would end up in the same state.
>
> TBH, I'm quite happy with that. Recent history has not been particularly
> convinincing to me that folks are actually testing arm64, let alone
> compiling for it when applying selftests patches.
FWIW, I did compile all patches on all KVM architectures, including selftests.
But my base obviously didn't include the kvm-arm64 branch :-/
One thing I'll add to my workflow would be to do a local merge (and smoke test)
of linux-next into kvm-x86 next before pushing it out. This isn't the only snafu
this cycle where such a sanity check would have saved me and others a bit of pain.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241101153857.GAZyT2EdLXKs7ZmDFx@fat_crate.local
More information about the linux-riscv
mailing list