On 8/19/24 9:33 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> +KVM arch maintainers
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
>> The tests are built on per architecture basis. When unsupported
>> architecture is specified, it has no tests and TEST_GEN_PROGS is empty.
>> The lib.mk has support for n
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 23:15:44 +0100,
Oliver Upton wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 09:33:17AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > And other KVM maintainers, the big question is: if we do the above, would
> > now be
> > a decent time to bite the bullet and switch to the kernel's canonical arch
On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 09:33:17AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> And other KVM maintainers, the big question is: if we do the above, would now
> be
> a decent time to bite the bullet and switch to the kernel's canonical arch
> paths,
> i.e. arm64, s390, and x86? I feel like if we're ever g
+KVM arch maintainers
On Mon, Aug 19, 2024, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> The tests are built on per architecture basis. When unsupported
> architecture is specified, it has no tests and TEST_GEN_PROGS is empty.
> The lib.mk has support for not building anything for such case. But KVM
> makefile d
On 8/19/24 03:30, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
The tests are built on per architecture basis. When unsupported
architecture is specified, it has no tests and TEST_GEN_PROGS is empty.
The lib.mk has support for not building anything for such case. But KVM
makefile doesn't handle such case correctly
The tests are built on per architecture basis. When unsupported
architecture is specified, it has no tests and TEST_GEN_PROGS is empty.
The lib.mk has support for not building anything for such case. But KVM
makefile doesn't handle such case correctly. It doesn't check if
TEST_GEN_PROGS is empty or
