On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 10:39 AM Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Sagi Shahar wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 4:51 PM Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 12:13:32PM -0700, Sagi Shahar wrote:
> > > > From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86/processor.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86/processor.c
> > > > index d082d429e127..d9f4ecd6ffbc 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86/processor.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86/processor.c
> > > > @@ -1166,10 +1166,19 @@ void kvm_get_cpu_address_width(unsigned int *pa_bits, unsigned int *va_bits)
> > > >
> > > > void kvm_init_vm_address_properties(struct kvm_vm *vm)
> > > > {
> > > > + uint32_t gpa_bits = kvm_cpu_property(X86_PROPERTY_GUEST_MAX_PHY_ADDR)
> > >
> > > This fails to compile.
> >
> > Looks like it's a simple case of missing semicolon at the end of the
> > line, it builds fine if you add it.
>
> Yea.
>
> > I can update it in the next
> > version.
>
> When do you expect this to be updated?
I just sent out v8 of the patches.
>
> It would be nice to see this land soon such that we don't have to keep
> carrying these patches out of tree.
>
> Would it help if I review this series? I thought it was relatively well
> reviewed. But given the above simple mistake perhaps it needs more
> review?
If you can review v8 that would be great.
>
> Ira
