From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51989) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d45hX-0004wZ-Ew for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:12:51 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d45hT-0006y3-GV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:12:47 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:32936) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d45hT-0006xZ-83 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:12:43 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v3SDA4NU024941 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:12:42 -0400 Received: from e16.ny.us.ibm.com (e16.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.206]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2a3hf68mp9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:12:42 -0400 Received: from localhost by e16.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:12:40 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 21:12:35 +0800 From: Dong Jia Shi References: <20170412052115.101657-1-bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170412052115.101657-8-bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170424164338.0250f3fa@w520.home> <20170424165628.631b0455@w520.home> <20170425051519.GH31848@bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170426084920.GI31848@bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170428130407.7de89e86.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170428130407.7de89e86.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> Message-Id: <20170428131235.GA27565@bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 07/13] vfio/ccw: vfio based subchannel passthrough driver List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Cornelia Huck Cc: Dong Jia Shi , Alex Williamson , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, renxiaof@linux.vnet.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, agraf@suse.com * Cornelia Huck [2017-04-28 13:04:07 +0200]: > On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:49:20 +0800 > Dong Jia Shi wrote: > > > * Dong Jia Shi [2017-04-25 13:15:19 +0800]: > > > > > * Alex Williamson [2017-04-24 16:56:28 -0600]: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > diff --git a/hw/vfio/ccw.c b/hw/vfio/ccw.c > > > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > > index 0000000..c491bee > > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > > +++ b/hw/vfio/ccw.c > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,207 @@ > > > > > > +/* > > > > > > + * vfio based subchannel assignment support > > > > > > + * > > > > > > + * Copyright 2017 IBM Corp. > > > > > > + * Author(s): Dong Jia Shi > > > > > > + * Xiao Feng Ren > > > > > > + * Pierre Morel > > > > > > + * > > > > > > + * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or(at > > > > > > + * your option) any version. See the COPYING file in the top-level > > > > > > + * directory. > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > + > > > > > > +#include > > > > > > +#include > > > > > > + > > > > > > +#include "qemu/osdep.h" > > > > > > +#include "qapi/error.h" > > > > > > +#include "hw/sysbus.h" > > > > > > +#include "hw/vfio/vfio.h" > > > > > > +#include "hw/vfio/vfio-common.h" > > > > > > +#include "hw/s390x/s390-ccw.h" > > > > > > +#include "hw/s390x/ccw-device.h" > > > > > > + > > > > > > +#define TYPE_VFIO_CCW "vfio-ccw" > > > > > > +typedef struct VFIOCCWDevice { > > > > > > + S390CCWDevice cdev; > > > > > > + VFIODevice vdev; > > > > > > +} VFIOCCWDevice; > > > > > > + > > > > > > +static void vfio_ccw_compute_needs_reset(VFIODevice *vdev) > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > + vdev->needs_reset = false; > > > > > > +} > > > > > > + > > > > > > +/* > > > > > > + * We don't need vfio_hot_reset_multi and vfio_eoi operationis for > > > > > > > > One more: > > > > > > > > s/operationis/operations/ > > > > > > > Ok. > > > > > > > Hi Conny, > > > > I have pulled your cohuck-qemu/s390-next branch, and prepared a new > > patch set with all of these problems fixed directly on the coressponding > > commits on it. Fine to send out the new version as that? > > > > Or I should rebase them against the latest master branch? > > As I currently don't have things in my next branch that should interact > with your changes, either is fine :) Thanks! :> I used your branch as the code base and just sent out the v6 patches. > > [I'll take a look at the new version then] -- Dong Jia Shi