Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu-s390x] [PATCH v1 for-2.12 00/15] s390x/tcg: cleanup and fix program interrupts

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 15:06:33 +0100
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 29.11.2017 14:51, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > On 28.11.2017 21:33, David Hildenbrand wrote:  
> >> I have quite some patches on my queue for 2.12. (booting Fedora 26/27
> >> guests, floating interrupts, machine checks, missing instructions ...)
> >>
> >> So let's start slowly :) This series gets rid of program_interrupt() and
> >> potential_page_fault(). We now always properly restore the cpu state when
> >> injecting/delivering a program interrupt. So there is no need to update
> >> the state via potential_page_fault() anymore.  
> > 
> > I think this series is basically a very good idea! But...
> > OK, this is kind of bike-shed-painting now, but since we're currently in
> > hard freeze anyway and got plenty of time for discussion:
> > Something that bothers me a little bit is the name of the new function
> > "program_interrupt_ra()" ... that would IMHO be OK if the old function
> > "program_interrupt" would still stay, but since that is removed and the
> > _ra function is the only generic way that is left to inject a program
> > interrupt, could we maybe name the new function somewhat nicer right
> > from the start? Something like "s390_program_interrupt" maybe (which is
> > similar to tcg_s390_program_interrupt and kvm_s390_program_interrupt
> > that we have already)?  
> 
> Sure I can do that, other opinions?

Fine with me as well.