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 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E8A1C433EF for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 08:51:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 819E6611BD for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 08:51:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S244518AbhKIIx7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2021 03:53:59 -0500 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:56492 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234536AbhKIIx6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2021 03:53:58 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1A96IHVN024894 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 08:51:12 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=quY43bOw0bY6ngLti0VDVEodPLT8BwkcsDnuVZBBu0I=; b=a0IzP8qwyU8TDFih0I0/rg3lgd6u0bTyjz78WA6/mtvuK+7/i92gqUJGN4fKeR38SpSC 7nJn0ETneKP2o8/dKdXnM7+GN7lim9KZv53BeEpfyCGprzLbyXu76oLMQm4Zx0D4Nsit AGT1nCkh3aP3j2umX1GgdcU/ACc/LAEOB+LGe6Z312BZVE+8huNumISm94E0Vjab+Q5d FLIqUJ6Q23u0/ZjpIXgUIbAf9KL+tpnotPXnbaZOGzkRSJ6hgGeB7g+uXdyn92DyRVjo xCtuZ0IPxkCQjUKyMHcyKmNO6i2hxzY6lTMlJvCxWeTblc7cXkkMRkMYmbzoZz7N7Cvs JA== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3c7kksb5re-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 09 Nov 2021 08:51:12 +0000 Received: from m0098420.ppops.net (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 1A98Y2QD030308 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 08:51:12 GMT Received: from ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (6b.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.107]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3c7kksb5qt-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 09 Nov 2021 08:51:12 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1A98mEO1018769; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 08:51:10 GMT Received: from b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.26.194]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3c5hba3tmj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 09 Nov 2021 08:51:10 +0000 Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (mk.ibm.com [9.149.105.60]) by b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 1A98iR4e61604344 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 9 Nov 2021 08:44:27 GMT Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1CC442049; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 08:51:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 793454204C; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 08:51:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.171.88.190] (unknown [9.171.88.190]) by d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 08:51:06 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <237b045d-6840-0df6-c358-5d4b34097f22@linux.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 09:51:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.0 Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 3/7] s390x: virtio: CCW transport implementation Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Huth , kvm@vger.kernel.org Cc: frankja@linux.ibm.com, david@redhat.com, cohuck@redhat.com, imbrenda@linux.ibm.com, drjones@redhat.com References: <1630059440-15586-1-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <1630059440-15586-4-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <74901bd1-e69f-99d3-b11e-e0b541226d20@redhat.com> <509a8f4f-89cc-fe80-4200-6776c503adbf@linux.ibm.com> <92a0b4a1-0888-3b99-a089-d2096272eee7@redhat.com> From: Pierre Morel In-Reply-To: <92a0b4a1-0888-3b99-a089-d2096272eee7@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 3uTUXT2kRzEdw1uQ8rxlvtZ09aA_HQNl X-Proofpoint-GUID: G40SMIWU62kUwcdmH_X0o9IhO28DYbS9 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.790,Hydra:6.0.425,FMLib:17.0.607.475 definitions=2021-11-09_02,2021-11-08_02,2020-04-07_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 clxscore=1015 spamscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2110150000 definitions=main-2111090049 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On 11/9/21 08:01, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 08/11/2021 13.34, Pierre Morel wrote: >> >> >> On 11/3/21 08:49, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> On 27/08/2021 12.17, Pierre Morel wrote: >>>> This is the implementation of the virtio-ccw transport level. >>>> >>>> We only support VIRTIO revision 0. >>> >>> That means only legacy virtio? Wouldn't it be better to shoot for >>> modern virtio instead? >> >> Yes but can we do it in a second series? > > Sure. > >>>> +int virtio_ccw_read_features(struct virtio_ccw_device *vcdev, >>>> uint64_t *features) >>>> +{ >>>> +    struct virtio_feature_desc *f_desc = &vcdev->f_desc; >>>> + >>>> +    f_desc->index = 0; >>>> +    if (ccw_send(vcdev, CCW_CMD_READ_FEAT, f_desc, sizeof(*f_desc), >>>> 0)) >>>> +        return -1; >>>> +    *features = swap32(f_desc->features); >>>> + >>>> +    f_desc->index = 1; >>>> +    if (ccw_send(vcdev, CCW_CMD_READ_FEAT, f_desc, sizeof(*f_desc), >>>> 0)) >>>> +        return -1; >>>> +    *features |= (uint64_t)swap32(f_desc->features) << 32; >>> >>> Weren't the upper feature bits only available for modern virtio anyway? >> >> Yes. >> I have the intention to upgrade to Rev. 1 when I get enough time for it. >> Should I remove this? It does not induce problem does it? > > No problem - maybe simply add a comment that the upper bits are for > virtio 1.0 and later. OK, Thanks, Pierre > >  Thomas > -- Pierre Morel IBM Lab Boeblingen