On Thu, Aug 14, 2025, Sagi Shahar wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 3:53 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025, Rick P Edgecombe wrote: > > > But Sean, if you want to save some time I think we can just accelerate this > > > other reviewing. As far as new-fangled features, having this upstream is > > > important even for that, because we are currently having to keep these tests > > > plus follow on tests in sync across various development branches. So yea, it's > > > time to get this over the line. > > > > Yes please. The unspoken threat in my response is that at some point I will just > > start NAKing KVM TDX patches :-D > > I'm making good progress and the massive refactor is mostly complete. > I believe I should have the patches ready to review next week. > > I'm also thinking that it would be easier if I split the series in 2 > or possibly 3 patchset. The first one including the setup code and the > basic lifecycle test and then the rest of the tests with possibly the > guest_memfd tests in a separate series. What do you think? Yes, please. Even if we end up having to tweak a few APIs when the fancier tests come along, I think it'll be easier and faster overall to hammer out the core support first.
