On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 1:12 PM Edgecombe, Rick P <rick.p.edgeco...@intel.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 10:38 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Please make cleaning up this mess the highest priority for TDX upstreaming. > > I > > am _thrilled_ (honestly) at the amount test coverage that has been > > developed for > > TDX. But I am equally angry that so much effort is being put into > > newfangled > > TDX features, and that so little effort is being put into helping review and > > polish this series. I refuse to believe that I am the only person that > > could > > look at the above code and come to the conclusion that it's simply > > unnacceptable. > > We were talking about this internally. Behind the scenes Reinette had actually > spent a pretty large amount of time (the majority?) cleaning this series up > actually, to even this level. This was some code cleanup, but also functional > stuff like rooting out bugs where tests would give false positive passes. But > the plan of action was to have some other TDX developers start reviewing it on > the Intel side. I was also wondering how much time Sagi has to spend on it for > follow on versions? We might want to think about a more direct process for > changes->posting depending on if Sagi is able to spend more time. > > But Sean, if you want to save some time I think we can just accelerate this > other reviewing. As far as new-fangled features, having this upstream is > important even for that, because we are currently having to keep these tests > plus follow on tests in sync across various development branches. So yea, it's > time to get this over the line.
Thanks for the feedback Sean, I really appreciate you taking the time to review the series. I do have time to work on this one this week. I'm hoping to send an updated version by the end of the week.
