From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 0/5] KVM: s390: Let user space control the cpu states Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 11:46:18 +0200 Message-ID: <53CCE16A.9020301@redhat.com> References: <1405430875-40722-1-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <53C933EB.9020707@redhat.com> <53CCC5A3.4000107@de.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alexander Graf , KVM , linux-s390 , Cornelia Huck , Jens Freimann , David Hildenbrand To: Christian Borntraeger Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:18033 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754132AbaGUJqc (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jul 2014 05:46:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: <53CCC5A3.4000107@de.ibm.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Il 21/07/2014 09:47, Christian Borntraeger ha scritto: > So having such a state wont buy us much. It would be even wrong, because > we want our MP_STATE defines to be a 1:1 match of the states that are defined > in the architecture as proper CPU states. Some of the SIGP calls will return the > state of the target CPU and that depends on the CPU state as defined in the > architecture. The wait bit does not have an influence on the return value. Thanks for the explanation. Paolo