From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CD50C636D3 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:00:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233105AbjBBTAH (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2023 14:00:07 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:40866 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232802AbjBBTAF (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2023 14:00:05 -0500 Received: from mail-yb1-xb2a.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A73F7199E0 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2023 11:00:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yb1-xb2a.google.com with SMTP id d132so3468365ybb.5 for ; Thu, 02 Feb 2023 11:00:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=zucP5W+kwXs2wiOU2Sh4NohAzbi8BWE0Est2e19KOc8=; b=oyfQ/DxlBU5iqPI5J355NstJZiS/2w5w667LGC5Pq/jckdlknwRq2GUEw7hhl4s3F9 mzgxDsyuuFC0dxSJG9B1ITkemEZt0sw+TdDz2Zz/+uQsoy0kgvO2pz3pP8Z2eYrto7AA jU82FkHc+WgVaEJ9OcJcKXMQMZaNiOr/wxXegsL5aMpteM4lKaaLCs5IMLQyMKvP+LJg 2b0GRzBHlq/JwR1yHEEE7o0wEJXPkQokCPKG4x+76CYUnfNqNL9JqgmFY22ueybAsGHM getdlATwZMjtHGL2kWD92LjTOXstd2W0HCWPf+6PjY0viazt1iHfoX/OtNEruIY0SpX8 f6YA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=zucP5W+kwXs2wiOU2Sh4NohAzbi8BWE0Est2e19KOc8=; b=M+XNheua/bgGcUzVIguOvJaPfprSJayk8qE0st8uRuCyI12EGpZoMU3v9CH6h9q9qT 65RfeDmETC8Ba1JngcyoJiCpzNHJBLPDVV0tOotgLdhOqMrRiW5yZUnqyWTurdOfHom4 7J4ADYAyi87DB939zW9PuBWASUFow7qD7D55puwaSwYO+Ww6YlNOSXMA3m9aFCzv2ss8 WL2OggJeXiYvsif1s5QTZFWB2CRLoJNJRml4NVJ2yLKycaMamnyIOOpIqc39ON0PDgtS KDn2VQlCpkqkOfBqtqeUSFjXYLG6XiCZS3QBsyuZwJ99NJEtik5zbaYZAmBKg41gvI4K iEtg== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKXxHkvuoJRh8ho1RU4rvwBkrXcGZecUM1M6vKKbMUb81BUsulKH RbCAAEefWpnG1CZ8kd9DfQax+3sCQdHLtnDMDk8AcA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set8Ytzp0jBxVYOcrX38K1GrWjc9umSJtTBsYYTDsmEjNKL4yKxif7vSXGi1MSwilFo2BtIJo7NtzBxYb16fdJbE= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:10f:b0:80b:72cc:3967 with SMTP id o15-20020a056902010f00b0080b72cc3967mr878863ybh.123.1675364399629; Thu, 02 Feb 2023 10:59:59 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20221212183720.4062037-1-vipinsh@google.com> <20221212183720.4062037-13-vipinsh@google.com> In-Reply-To: From: Vipin Sharma Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2023 10:59:23 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Patch v4 12/13] KVM: selftests: Make vCPU exit reason test assertion common. To: Sean Christopherson Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, vkuznets@redhat.com, dmatlack@google.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Marc Zyngier , James Morse , m Suzuki K Poulose , Oliver Upton , Zenghui Yu , Anup Patel , Atish Patra , Christian Borntraeger , Janosch Frank , Claudio Imbrenda , David Hildenbrand Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 10:51 AM Sean Christopherson wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 02, 2023, Vipin Sharma wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 3:24 PM Sean Christopherson 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. > > #1 is rarely going to be the best option. The big cleanup is going to necessitate > Cc'ing a lot of people that don't care about the base arch-specific changes, so > unless the base changes are one or two trivial patches, a lot of people end up > having to wade through a lot of noise. And aside from annoying people, that also > makes it more likely that someone will overlook the cleanup. > > As for #2 vs. #3, #3 is probably a better option in most cases. For broad cleanups, > odds are very good that there will be other conflicts beyond just the changes _you_ > have in-flight. E.g. in this case, any new tests and/or asserts that are in-flight, > sitting in other trees, etc., will suffer the same fate. I.e. whoever applies the > cleanup is going to need to resolve conflicts and/or look for other cleanup > opportunities anyways. For a scenario like this, a way to make life easy for the > maintainer applying the cleanup would be to provide a script, e.g. single grep > command, to look for potential cleanup spots. That communicates to the maintainer > that there may be silent "conflicts" and makes it easier for them to resolve such > conflicts. This is a good idea, to provide a grep or at least provide hints on how one has found places to edit. I will keep this in mind. Thanks > > Posting the cleanup separately means the two series/patches can proceed > independently, e.g. respinning one doesn't screw up the other, maintainers can > take the patches in whatever order they prefer, etc. > > There are undoubtedly exceptions, e.g. if the resulting conflicts are really nasty, > but those should be few and far between.