On Tue, Sep 22, 2026, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote: > --- > MAINTAINERS | 2 + > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile | 2 +- > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm | 10 + > .../testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h | 9 + > .../selftests/kvm/include/powerpc/hcall.h | 17 + > .../kvm/include/powerpc/kvm_util_arch.h | 22 + > .../selftests/kvm/include/powerpc/ppc_asm.h | 32 ++ > .../selftests/kvm/include/powerpc/processor.h | 39 ++ > .../selftests/kvm/include/powerpc/ucall.h | 21 + > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/guest_modes.c | 20 +- > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c | 8 + > .../selftests/kvm/lib/powerpc/handlers.S | 93 ++++ > .../testing/selftests/kvm/lib/powerpc/hcall.c | 45 ++ > .../selftests/kvm/lib/powerpc/processor.c | 512 ++++++++++++++++++ > .../testing/selftests/kvm/lib/powerpc/ucall.c | 22 + > 15 files changed, 851 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/powerpc/hcall.h > create mode 100644 > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/powerpc/kvm_util_arch.h > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/powerpc/ppc_asm.h > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/powerpc/processor.h > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/powerpc/ucall.h > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/powerpc/handlers.S > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/powerpc/hcall.c > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/powerpc/processor.c > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/powerpc/ucall.c > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > index fc320b373656..35df0c39e991 100644 > --- a/MAINTAINERS > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > @@ -14349,6 +14349,8 @@ F: arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm* > F: arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/kvm* > F: arch/powerpc/kernel/kvm* > F: arch/powerpc/kvm/ > +F: tools/testing/selftests/kvm/*/powerpc/ > +F: tools/testing/selftests/kvm/powerpc/
I don't think sending KVM PPC selftests changes through the PPC tree will work. It's "fine" for KVM PPC changes because the volume of KVM PPC changes is low and rarely modifies anything outside of arch/powerpc. KVM selftests tend to have a lot more cross-arch and/or common code modifications, i.e. I think we'll be setting ourselves up for pain if we don't route all KVM selftests changes through Paolo's tree. Does it maybe make sense to have all of KVM PPC route through Paolo? Punting to PPC made sense when KVM PPC was on life support, but it looks like resuscitation was successful for at least some flavors of KVM PPC?
