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=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,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 664FBC28CC0 for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 11:05:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E58B20B7C for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 11:05:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726518AbfE2LFw (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 May 2019 07:05:52 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:37322 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725894AbfE2LFw (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 May 2019 07:05:52 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x4TAvP0i115582 for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 07:05:50 -0400 Received: from e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.99]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2ssrpcgj6w-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 07:05:50 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 29 May 2019 12:05:48 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.194) by e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.133) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Wed, 29 May 2019 12:05:44 +0100 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x4TB5gTb41615530 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 29 May 2019 11:05:42 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7A4FAE057; Wed, 29 May 2019 11:05:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08137AE053; Wed, 29 May 2019 11:05:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.152.96.222] (unknown [9.152.96.222]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 May 2019 11:05:41 +0000 (GMT) Reply-To: mimu@linux.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] virtio/s390: add indirection to indicators access To: Cornelia Huck , Halil Pasic Cc: KVM Mailing List , Linux-S390 Mailing List , Sebastian Ott , Heiko Carstens , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, "Michael S . Tsirkin" , Christoph Hellwig , Thomas Huth , Christian Borntraeger , Viktor Mihajlovski , Vasily Gorbik , Janosch Frank , Claudio Imbrenda , Farhan Ali , Eric Farman , Pierre Morel References: <20190523162209.9543-1-mimu@linux.ibm.com> <20190523162209.9543-7-mimu@linux.ibm.com> <20190527130028.62e1f7d7.cohuck@redhat.com> <20190527135706.34837062.pasic@linux.ibm.com> <20190527141029.102f838a.cohuck@redhat.com> From: Michael Mueller Organization: IBM Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 13:05:41 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190527141029.102f838a.cohuck@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19052911-0012-0000-0000-00000320901F X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19052911-0013-0000-0000-000021595B35 Message-Id: <08e56ae6-28ed-52ae-62ec-fde786949500@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-05-29_06:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1905290074 Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On 27.05.19 14:10, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Mon, 27 May 2019 13:57:06 +0200 > Halil Pasic wrote: > >> On Mon, 27 May 2019 13:00:28 +0200 >> Cornelia Huck wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 23 May 2019 18:22:07 +0200 >>> Michael Mueller wrote: >>> >>>> From: Halil Pasic >>>> >>>> This will come in handy soon when we pull out the indicators from >>>> virtio_ccw_device to a memory area that is shared with the hypervisor >>>> (in particular for protected virtualization guests). >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic >>>> Reviewed-by: Pierre Morel >>>> --- >>>> drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- >>>> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) >>>> >>> >>>> @@ -338,17 +348,17 @@ static void virtio_ccw_drop_indicator(struct virtio_ccw_device *vcdev, >>>> ccw->cda = (__u32)(unsigned long) thinint_area; >>>> } else { >>>> /* payload is the address of the indicators */ >>>> - indicatorp = kmalloc(sizeof(&vcdev->indicators), >>>> + indicatorp = kmalloc(sizeof(indicators(vcdev)), >>>> GFP_DMA | GFP_KERNEL); >>>> if (!indicatorp) >>>> return; >>>> *indicatorp = 0; >>>> ccw->cmd_code = CCW_CMD_SET_IND; >>>> - ccw->count = sizeof(&vcdev->indicators); >>>> + ccw->count = sizeof(indicators(vcdev)); >>>> ccw->cda = (__u32)(unsigned long) indicatorp; >>>> } >>>> /* Deregister indicators from host. */ >>>> - vcdev->indicators = 0; >>>> + *indicators(vcdev) = 0; >>> >>> I'm not too hot about this notation, but it's not wrong and a minor >>> thing :) >> >> I don't have any better ideas :/ >> >>> >>>> ccw->flags = 0; >>>> ret = ccw_io_helper(vcdev, ccw, >>>> vcdev->is_thinint ? >>> >>> Patch looks reasonable and not dependent on the other patches here. >>> >> >> looks reasonable == r-b? >> >> Not dependent in a sense that this patch could be made a first patch in >> the series. A subsequent patch depends on it. > > What is the plan with these patches? I can either pick patch 5+6 and > let them go through the virtio tree, or give my r-b and let them go > through the s390 tree. The former is probably the quicker route, but > the latter has less potential for dependency issues. please give your r-b then for these. > Michael