From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5250C28CC0 for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 09:50:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F2BA2070D for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 09:50:05 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7F2BA2070D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50801 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hVvDg-00076S-Pj for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 29 May 2019 05:50:04 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:56552) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hVvCG-0006Ts-ES for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 May 2019 05:48:37 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hVvCF-0000n2-Lb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 May 2019 05:48:36 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40302) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hVvCF-0000mW-HL; Wed, 29 May 2019 05:48:35 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A92E301EA90; Wed, 29 May 2019 09:48:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gondolin (dhcp-192-222.str.redhat.com [10.33.192.222]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1853D60F87; Wed, 29 May 2019 09:48:30 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 11:48:28 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck To: Eric Farman Message-ID: <20190529114828.046a832f.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <192d35fa-12be-c840-e61c-716a3bd80943@linux.ibm.com> References: <20190507154733.28604-1-cohuck@redhat.com> <20190507154733.28604-3-cohuck@redhat.com> <20190521183235.7c3d0b37.cohuck@redhat.com> <192d35fa-12be-c840-e61c-716a3bd80943@linux.ibm.com> Organization: Red Hat GmbH MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.47]); Wed, 29 May 2019 09:48:34 +0000 (UTC) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 2/2] vfio-ccw: support async command subregion X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Pierre Morel , Farhan Ali , Alex Williamson , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Halil Pasic , qemu-s390x@nongnu.org Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Tue, 21 May 2019 16:47:45 -0400 Eric Farman wrote: > On 5/21/19 12:32 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > Why mostly? I'm not sure yet whether we handling multiple requests for > > passthrough devices correctly yet (virtual should be fine.) > > > > Start vs. (start|halt|clear) is fine, as the code checks whether > > something is already pending before poking the kernel interface. > > Likewise, halt vs. (start|halt|clear) is fine, as the code checks for > > halt or clear and start and halt use different regions. The problematic > > one is clear, as that's something that's always supposed to go through. > > Probably fine if clear should always "win", but I need to think some > > more about that. > > I suspect you are right, because of the check on the halt side, and > considering that the clear is the biggest recovery action we have. So > this does seem like things are okay. I'll ponder this overnight and > finish my review tomorrow. Ok, what's the verdict here? :) (I'm trying to clean up my pending stuff :)