Re: [PATCH v7 033/104] tests/tcg/Makefile: skip user/system tests if target Makefile is not present

On 8/21/2026 1:48 AM, Alex Bennée wrote:
> Pierrick Bouvier <[email protected]> writes:
> 
>> On 8/20/2026 12:10 PM, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>> Pierrick Bouvier <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 8/19/2026 7:30 AM, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>>>> Pierrick Bouvier <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In the next commits, we'll port each architecture from Makefile to
>>>>>> meson, and it's easier to review those changes if we remove Makefiles
>>>>>> step by step.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tested-by: Aniket Sahu <[email protected]>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Pierrick Bouvier <[email protected]>
>>>>>
>>>>> Acked-by: Alex Bennée <[email protected]>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems like you are the official maintainer for
>>>> tests/tcg/Makefile.target, thus I'm not sure what is the Acked-by
>>>> semantic for a component you "own".
>>>
>>> It means go ahead, I've acknowledged I've seen it although not looked
>>> too closely. Generally when a maintainer acks something they trust the
>>> poster taking it forward via their tree/pr.
>>>
>>
>> That's why I'm confused. In this case, I expect you will be the one
>> sending PR for current series, as you maintain tcg tests in general. It
>> can't be me, the poster, as I don't have any authority on this
>> subsystem.
> 
> I was under the impression with the rewrite you were going to be the
> maintainer going forward anyway so I don't see an issue with you sending
> the PR.
>

You suggested it indeed, I'll add a patch for next version to add myself
under your name.

>> This series will have to go at once, we can't delegate all architectures
>> bits to sub maintainers.
>>
>>> Given its a temp patch for the migration I don't think you need worry
>>> about having more review on it.
>>>
>>
>> In my mind, it was expected (ideally) to have a reviewed-by on all
>> patches before they can be taken to a PR.
> 
> I think we are almost there. I'm just looking at the prot-none
> workarounds at the moment. Have all the architectures been acked or
> reviewed by their various owners?
>

As mentioned on a previous version, my plan is to get all the
infrastructure code (+ multiarch part) reviewed first, to make sure
there are no last minute expected changes, which is why I insist on
asking you to review for a few weeks now.

Then I'll ping all the arch maintainers to ask them to review their part.

Meanwhile, you, Peter, or Richard, could also help on aarch64 and arm to
save some time also. It should take only a few minutes to review those ones.

Thanks,
Pierrick