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=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 E879CC432C0 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 08:54:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB9F420833 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 08:54:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="CJK7vIR6" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726399AbfLBIys (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Dec 2019 03:54:48 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.61]:44419 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726350AbfLBIys (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Dec 2019 03:54:48 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1575276887; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Y+wyJ8IADLwMbR28iErE2ZjOxdK9KDFPaNTRulDtHZc=; b=CJK7vIR6YJrQDcZWPsk7TuxpfKbou1silTNNB7/6C+Oa/mh6r5PyM6ZQUs+63PwFdzbuXx CLlW4VMBSqobdajxP4Mh5Jj85nFTO0gSiFNhw+4haHaRJj/zJrit7nwuV8AcOTy9zqqxdl ytSazsV0vrg4o61SQEWWvjsRYkMZzPs= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-102-eHIDr4w2PRSONIFW4W9Z8w-1; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 03:54:43 -0500 X-MC-Unique: eHIDr4w2PRSONIFW4W9Z8w-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6591100551B; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 08:54:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gondolin (ovpn-116-41.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.41]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C55E5C3FD; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 08:54:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 09:54:26 +0100 From: Cornelia Huck To: Janosch Frank Cc: David Hildenbrand , Christian Borntraeger , kvm@vger.kernel.org, thuth@redhat.com, mihajlov@linux.ibm.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: s390: Add new reset vcpu API Message-ID: <20191202095426.76386507.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <933de98c-2299-caf8-e237-011164273837@linux.ibm.com> References: <20191129142122.21528-1-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <8e1aa1af-d929-e36b-f341-aa7dbe27f6a4@linux.ibm.com> <227a8fce-7e14-030e-b0a4-17e4521eed98@redhat.com> <708d16c2-fa18-8ab9-afb5-44b5af638cb4@de.ibm.com> <487af903-bb8c-a7c5-b81d-dc0ce1bb7b75@redhat.com> <933de98c-2299-caf8-e237-011164273837@linux.ibm.com> Organization: Red Hat GmbH MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/ftyxjIK._SdiK3yGLzWuo1I"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org --Sig_/ftyxjIK._SdiK3yGLzWuo1I Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 15:57:25 +0100 Janosch Frank wrote: > On 11/29/19 3:48 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > On 29.11.19 15:39, Christian Borntraeger wrote: =20 > >> > >> > >> On 29.11.19 15:38, Janosch Frank wrote: > >> [...] =20 > >>>>>> As we now have two interfaces to achieve the same thing (initial r= eset), > >>>>>> 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? =20 > >>>>> > >>>>> Apart from loosing one more ioctl number probably not =20 > >>>> > >>>> Do we care? (I think not, but maybe I am missing something :) ) > >>>> =20 > >>> > >>> 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 ? =20 > >> > >> KVM_CAP_S390_VCPU_RESETS ? =20 > >=20 > > Either that or two separate ones if you're not going to introduce them > > at the same time ... > > =20 >=20 > 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? --Sig_/ftyxjIK._SdiK3yGLzWuo1I Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEw9DWbcNiT/aowBjO3s9rk8bwL68FAl3k0UIACgkQ3s9rk8bw L6/5KQ//a7AU3AS3/kInhoHvJWIZmZUMyNC9h2O//HSlS+2jRuyl/5tCW2j4CXCM fN7PHF9xIoMa0IMqMJOFkJzyM0g1sQUXBQhHhZ7rpd8eoAjCiE2spmputIHD+4Ne UYXL0bTCUEd6KVJ3d5Re6XPIQzWi3VJd+SYU7SAp6UTV5FzX3of/RMQmKs8WKPBh 4WE6ghlQorgDnjSelmXCGav93Db/PnvX8/Z+WXdjyBvJDdvtEz2gYthnWaOS9oUf /kX+sZKaOoaaKpzYx019biQwivJLVpySAkEAMXyatoXgJBci0xXKobc3QaWD3Hv/ 8FhnpdmhOG4eUNUa9hVDJA6XV2nMFMW70JxWekIqG366wuVA8FaNliH5k0toed12 UMrIiLjLnkvNwSW70Bd11BLiP09ZdgkVHwOfY5ezkZJgI2D8iK+BhNd5XGQFsWJh bP2/s4/mLa0iLR8EAg2XQ90Ug4MvaXYM8ORykYwvjOAA/HVe5hrpoUMd74EmzSkl Fao7V2OKLY3RjbN+joBcbbf5lmowOXdrbBkP1tpl37FIoLc0eOr/bIiBE2Oijbdm kdy+5FUuHMQS72k/EhHsSNIwSl2s/UWs29sNDErNvmV3KoWaAL4+mnU0SeLbY52p yIdOn3W/SUmdhUtx3nw4hUisvxNbzuh8zBy3tuAqLe3aq7cbGkU= =OOa8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/ftyxjIK._SdiK3yGLzWuo1I--