Re: [PATCH] KVM: s390: Add new reset vcpu API

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1477 bytes --]

On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 15:57:25 +0100
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 11/29/19 3:48 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 29.11.19 15:39, Christian Borntraeger wrote:  
> >>
> >>
> >> On 29.11.19 15:38, Janosch Frank wrote:
> >> [...]  
> >>>>>> As we now have two interfaces to achieve the same thing (initial reset),
> >>>>>> I do wonder if we should simply introduce
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> KVM_S390_NORMAL_RESET
> >>>>>> KVM_S390_CLEAR_RESET
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> instead ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then you can do KVM_S390_NORMAL_RESET for the bugfix and
> >>>>>> KVM_S390_CLEAR_RESET later for PV.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Does anything speak against that?  
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Apart from loosing one more ioctl number probably not  
> >>>>
> >>>> Do we care? (I think not, but maybe I am missing something :) )
> >>>>  
> >>>
> >>> I don't, maybe somebody else does
> >>> Btw. I'm struggling to find a good name for the capability:
> >>> KVM_CAP_S390_VCPU_ADDITIONAL_RESETS ?  
> >>
> >> KVM_CAP_S390_VCPU_RESETS ?  
> > 
> > Either that or two separate ones if you're not going to introduce them
> > at the same time ...
> >   
> 
> This is starting to get messy...

In order to reduce the mess, simply introduce them at the same time? I
might be missing something, but is there anything speaking against it,
as you can simply invoke the initial reset handler for clear reset for
now?

Also:
KVM_CAP_S390_ENHANCED_VCPU_RESETS, maybe?

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]