Thanks for reply.
On 2024/4/26 00:25, Sean Christopherson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024, Oliver Upton wrote:
Hey,
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 07:51:44AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 12:15:47PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024, Oliver Upton wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 07:51:44AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 12:15:47PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > I almost wonder if we should just
Hey,
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 07:51:44AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 12:15:47PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > ...
> > > I almost wonder if we should just pick a prefix that's less obviously
> > > connected
> > >
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 12:15:47PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> ...
> > I almost wonder if we should just pick a prefix that's less obviously
> > connected
> > to KVM and/or selftests, but unique and short.
> >
>
> How about kvmsft_ ? It's based
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 12:15:47PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 07:56:01AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > +others
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024, Markus
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 12:15:47PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
...
> I almost wonder if we should just pick a prefix that's less obviously
> connected
> to KVM and/or selftests, but unique and short.
>
How about kvmsft_ ? It's based on the ksft_ prefix of kselftest.h. Maybe
it's too close
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 12:15:47PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 07:56:01AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > +others
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > > …
> > > > > This patch will add
Thanks all for the reply.
On 2024/4/24 03:15, Sean Christopherson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 07:56:01AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
+others
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024, Markus Elfring wrote:
…
This patch will add the malloc failure checking
…
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 07:56:01AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > +others
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > …
> > > > This patch will add the malloc failure checking
> > > …
> > >
> > > * Please use a corresponding
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 07:56:01AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> +others
>
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > …
> > > This patch will add the malloc failure checking
> > …
> >
> > * Please use a corresponding imperative wording for the change description.
> >
> > * Would
+others
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024, Markus Elfring wrote:
> …
> > This patch will add the malloc failure checking
> …
>
> * Please use a corresponding imperative wording for the change description.
>
> * Would you like to add the tag “Fixes” accordingly?
Nah, don't bother with Fixes. OOM will cause
…
> This patch will add the malloc failure checking
…
* Please use a corresponding imperative wording for the change description.
* Would you like to add the tag “Fixes” accordingly?
…
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/vmx_set_nested_state_test.c
> @@ -91,6 +91,7 @@ void
On 4/23/24 12:39 PM, Kunwu Chan wrote:
> There is a 'malloc' call in test_vmx_nested_state function, which can
> be unsuccessful. This patch will add the malloc failure checking
> to avoid possible null dereference and give more information
> about test fail reasons.
LGTM
Reviewed-by: Muhammad
There is a 'malloc' call in test_vmx_nested_state function, which can
be unsuccessful. This patch will add the malloc failure checking
to avoid possible null dereference and give more information
about test fail reasons.
Signed-off-by: Kunwu Chan
---
14 matches
Mail list logo
