From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cornelia Huck Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 12/22] s390: vfio-ap: sysfs interfaces to configure control domains Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 13:31:34 +0200 Message-ID: <20180823133134.32e1d2f8.cohuck@redhat.com> References: <1534196899-16987-1-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1534196899-16987-13-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180820162317.08bd7d23.cohuck@redhat.com> <660de00a-c403-28c1-4df4-82a973ab3ad5@linux.ibm.com> <20180821172548.57a6c758.cohuck@redhat.com> <82a391ee-85b1-cdc7-0f9b-d37fd8ba8e47@linux.ibm.com> <20180822114250.59a250aa.cohuck@redhat.com> <8bc5f207-f913-825c-f9fc-0a2c7fd280aa@linux.ibm.com> <219b352b-d5a2-189c-e205-82e7f9ae3d64@de.ibm.com> <9ef5fcb9-02e0-88e3-007c-eedb14e6db80@linux.ibm.com> <20180823122525.02fc4af3.cohuck@redhat.com> <25a44526-a2d6-c632-6a6d-8ca385925731@linux.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Tony Krowiak , Halil Pasic , Christian Borntraeger , Tony Krowiak , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, freude@de.ibm.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, kwankhede@nvidia.com, bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com, pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com, alifm@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mjrosato@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jjherne@linux.vnet.ibm.com, thuth@redhat.com, pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com, berrange@redhat.com, fiuczy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, buendgen@de.ibm.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com To: Pierre Morel Return-path: In-Reply-To: <25a44526-a2d6-c632-6a6d-8ca385925731@linux.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:43:42 +0200 Pierre Morel wrote: > On 23/08/2018 12:25, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 15:16:19 -0400 > > Tony Krowiak wrote: > > > >> One of the things I suggested in a private conversation with Christian > >> earlier > >> today was to provide an additional rw sysfs attribute - a boolean - that > >> indicates > >> whether all usage domains should also be control domains. The default > >> could be > >> true. This would allow one to configure guests with usage-only domains > >> as well > >> as satisfy the convention. > > > > Would this additional attribute then control "add usage domains to the > > list of control domains automatically", or "don't allow to add a usage > > domain if it has not already been added as a control domain"? > > > > One thing I'm still unsure about is how libvirt comes into the picture > > here. Will it consume the setting, or actively manipulate it? > > > > [In general, I'm not very clear about how libvirt will interact with the > > whole infrastructure...] > > > > When I read you it convince me that it is not wise to change anything > that has been already discuss and could impact the Libvirt. My main point basically was that we should get feedback from a libvirt POV :) The new attribute may make sense, or not; but I'm really feeling a bit in the dark with regard to libvirt.