On Fri, Aug 20, 2021, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> I still really hate flakiness in tests, because then people stop caring when
> they
> fail once in a while. And with the nature of rseq, a once-in-a-while failure
> is a
> big deal. Let's see if we can use other tricks to ensure stability of the
- On Aug 19, 2021, at 7:33 PM, Sean Christopherson sea...@google.com wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> - On Aug 17, 2021, at 8:12 PM, Sean Christopherson sea...@google.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Add a test to verify an rseq's CPU ID is updated correctly if the task
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> - On Aug 17, 2021, at 8:12 PM, Sean Christopherson sea...@google.com
> wrote:
>
> > Add a test to verify an rseq's CPU ID is updated correctly if the task is
> > migrated while the kernel is handling KVM_RUN. This is a regression test
> > for
- On Aug 17, 2021, at 8:12 PM, Sean Christopherson sea...@google.com wrote:
> Add a test to verify an rseq's CPU ID is updated correctly if the task is
> migrated while the kernel is handling KVM_RUN. This is a regression test
> for a bug introduced by commit 72c3c0fe54a3 ("x86/kvm: Use
Add a test to verify an rseq's CPU ID is updated correctly if the task is
migrated while the kernel is handling KVM_RUN. This is a regression test
for a bug introduced by commit 72c3c0fe54a3 ("x86/kvm: Use generic xfer
to guest work function"), where TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME would be cleared by KVM
