From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cornelia Huck Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] vfio-ccw: forward halt/clear to device if supported Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 17:52:43 +0200 Message-ID: <20180516175243.2ec79883.cohuck@redhat.com> References: <20180509154910.23578-1-cohuck@redhat.com> <20180509154910.23578-2-cohuck@redhat.com> <20180515180104.646cba0c.cohuck@redhat.com> <57a7b9b1-130a-3c78-6e29-226f544c69c9@linux.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Dong Jia Shi , Halil Pasic , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org To: Pierre Morel Return-path: In-Reply-To: <57a7b9b1-130a-3c78-6e29-226f544c69c9@linux.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 16 May 2018 15:53:48 +0200 Pierre Morel wrote: > On 15/05/2018 18:01, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Fri, 11 May 2018 11:53:52 +0200 > > Pierre Morel wrote: > >> Couldn't we introduce ABI versioning ? > > Can you elaborate what you're referring to? > > > > If you mean checking capabilities of the kernel or so: If we can avoid > > that and just try (and stop if it does not work), I'd prefer that (no > > dependencies). > > VFIO_CHECK_EXTENSION is already used in different drivers > for this kind of interface extension. > We could use it to setup appropriate callbacks for scsh/csch/xsch/hsch > depending on the extension argument. Hm, this might be useful for things like xsch that aren't really well served by the current interface. Or we could try using the device-specific capability interface. Let me think and play with this a bit.