On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 11:59:39 -0700 David Matlack dmatlack@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 1:55 PM David Matlack dmatlack@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 3:26 PM Jason Gunthorpe jgg@nvidia.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 10:27:37AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 09:47:48 -0700 David Matlack dmatlack@google.com wrote:
I also was curious about your thoughts on maintenance of VFIO selftests, since I don't think we discussed that in the RFC. I am happy to help maintain VFIO selftests in whatever way makes the most sense. For now I added tools/testing/selftests/vfio under the top-level VFIO section in MAINTAINERS (so you would be the maintainer) and then also added a separate section for VFIO selftests with myself as a Reviewer (see PATCH 01). Reviewer felt like a better choice than Maintainer for myself since I am new to VFIO upstream (I've primarily worked on KVM in the past).
Hi David,
There's a lot of potential here and I'd like to see it proceed.
+1 too, I really lack time at the moment to do much with this but I'm half inclined to suggest Alex should say it should be merged in 6 weeks (to motivate any reviewing) and we can continue to work on it in-tree.
As they are self tests I think there is alot more value in having the tests than having perfect tests.
They have been quite useful already within Google. Internally we have something almost identical to the RFC and have been using that for testing our 6.6-based kernel continuously since March. Already they have caught one (self-inflicted) regression where 1GiB HugeTLB pages started getting mapped with 2MiB mappings in the IOMMU, and have been very helpful with new development (e.g. Aaron's work, and Live Update support).
So I agree, it's probably net positive to merge early and then iterate in-tree. Especially since these are only tests and not e.g. load-bearing kernel code (although I still want to hold a high bar for the selftests code).
The only patches to hold off merging would be 31-33, since those should probably go through the KVM tree? And of course we need Acks for the drivers/dma/{ioat,idxd} changes, but the changes there are pretty minor.
Alex, how would you like to proceed?
I think we need an ack from Shuah for the overall inclusion in tools/testing/selftests/
AFAICT the tools include files don't seem to have any central authority, so maybe we just need to chase those ioat/idxd acks, along with Shuah's and we can get this rolling and follow-up with the latter KVM patches once the base is merged. Thanks,
Alex