Re: [PATCH v5 0/9] KVM: selftests: add powerpc support

[IBM]

Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Tue, Sep 29, 2026, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
>> "Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> 
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > This series primarly adds KVM selftests support for powerpc (64-bit, BookS,
>> > radix MMU).
>> >
>> 
>> Hello Sean,
>> 
>> Just wanted to check what's our plan on this one?
>
> At this point, I'm not going to get a pull request to Paolo before the normal
> merge window.  I was hoping/planning to get some early pull requests to Paolo
> this cycle so y'all could build on kvm/next directly, but that didn't happen.
>
>> Are we planning for both PPC pre-enablement series of yours and this one to
>> be taken for v7.4 merge? Do you think this can go in too?
>
> I'd like to get at least a subset of this series in for 7.4.  If I'm reading
> things correctly, all of the hacky changes I don't like are for the
> kvm_create_max_vcpus_test and hardware_disable_test.  And as called out in the
> final patch, "fixes" for PPC really should be ordered so that they land *before*
> the tests are enabled.
>
> Actually, better idea.  Limit patch 1 to just TEST_GEN_PROGS_COMMON, then for
> the addon tests, bundle the "fix" with the PPC enablement.  AFAICT, except for
> the kvm_create_max_vcpus changes, they're all pretty small, i.e. bundling the
> PPC support with the "fix" shouldn't be too painful, and then we don't have to
> worry about ordering.
>

Sure, will take the suggested route then. Will bundle the Makefile
enablement change and the needed fix in the same patch to avoid the
ordering issue.

Also note - I will open code the TEST_GEN_PROGS_COMMON and will skip the
kvm_create_max_vcpus (& maybe few others like vm_types_test) from that in v6.

> As for kvm_create_max_vcpus and hardware_disable_test, drop them from the initial
> enablement so we can get the core support landed, and tackle them as separate
> series post-7.4.
>

Sure. Will drop these two.

> As for actually landing this, the easiest thing at this point would probably be
> for me to grab the patches in a dedicated topic branch that's based off the
> kvm-x86/selftests branch at an appropriate point in time.  Alternatively, I
> could provide a stable tag and someone else could grab the patches, but other
> than it being a little weird taking PPC changes through kvm-x86, that's by far
> the easiest approach since I'll be sending Paolo pull requests anyways and can
> explain the dependencies and whatnot.
>
> TL;DR: what if you post a slightly trimmed-down v6 and I take it through kvm-x86?

Sure, Thanks a lot Sean!
Let me post v6 with the suggested approach.

-ritesh