Sean Christopherson <[email protected]> writes: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2026, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote: >> --- >> MAINTAINERS | 2 + >> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile | 2 +- >> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm | 10 + >> .../testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h | 9 + >> .../selftests/kvm/include/powerpc/hcall.h | 17 + >> .../kvm/include/powerpc/kvm_util_arch.h | 22 + >> .../selftests/kvm/include/powerpc/ppc_asm.h | 32 ++ >> .../selftests/kvm/include/powerpc/processor.h | 39 ++ >> .../selftests/kvm/include/powerpc/ucall.h | 21 + >> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/guest_modes.c | 20 +- >> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c | 8 + >> .../selftests/kvm/lib/powerpc/handlers.S | 93 ++++ >> .../testing/selftests/kvm/lib/powerpc/hcall.c | 45 ++ >> .../selftests/kvm/lib/powerpc/processor.c | 512 ++++++++++++++++++ >> .../testing/selftests/kvm/lib/powerpc/ucall.c | 22 + >> 15 files changed, 851 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/powerpc/hcall.h >> create mode 100644 >> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/powerpc/kvm_util_arch.h >> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/powerpc/ppc_asm.h >> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/powerpc/processor.h >> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/powerpc/ucall.h >> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/powerpc/handlers.S >> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/powerpc/hcall.c >> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/powerpc/processor.c >> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/powerpc/ucall.c >> >> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS >> index fc320b373656..35df0c39e991 100644 >> --- a/MAINTAINERS >> +++ b/MAINTAINERS >> @@ -14349,6 +14349,8 @@ F: arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm* >> F: arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/kvm* >> F: arch/powerpc/kernel/kvm* >> F: arch/powerpc/kvm/ >> +F: tools/testing/selftests/kvm/*/powerpc/ >> +F: tools/testing/selftests/kvm/powerpc/ > > I don't think sending KVM PPC selftests changes through the PPC tree will > work. > It's "fine" for KVM PPC changes because the volume of KVM PPC changes is low > and > rarely modifies anything outside of arch/powerpc. > > KVM selftests tend to have a lot more cross-arch and/or common code > modifications, > i.e. I think we'll be setting ourselves up for pain if we don't route all KVM > selftests changes through Paolo's tree. >
Sure, since enabling kvm selftests on powerpc has quite a few common changes in cross-arch, so it make sense to take it via common tree which it already uses. BTW - the above file name paths are just so that we can have people cc linuxppc-dev too, for powerpc kvm selftests changes. > Does it maybe make sense to have all of KVM PPC route through Paolo? Punting > to > PPC made sense when KVM PPC was on life support, but it looks like > resuscitation > was successful for at least some flavors of KVM PPC? Today, I think it is getting managed, as long as the core/UAPI changes are routed via Paolo and/or via ACK from both maintainers. However, for PPC kvm selftests - let's do as discussed - to take it via common kvm tree. Thanks again Sean, for the review. I will soon post v6 with the suggested approach. -ritesh
