Re: [PATCH v6 21/21] s390: doc: detailed specifications for AP virtualization

[Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>]

On 07/09/2018 11:21 AM, Pierre Morel wrote:
> On 03/07/2018 01:10, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 06/29/2018 11:11 PM, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>>> This patch provides documentation describing the AP architecture and
>>> design concepts behind the virtualization of AP devices. It also
>>> includes an example of how to configure AP devices for exclusive
>>> use of KVM guests.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
>>
>> I don't like the design of external interfaces except for:
>> * cpu model features, and
>> * reset handling.
>>
>> In particular:
>>
>>
> ...snip...
>
>> 4) If I were to act out the role of the administrator, I would prefer 
>> to think of
>> specifying or changing the access controls of a guest in respect to 
>> AP (that is
>> setting the AP matrix) as a single atomic operation -- which either 
>> succeeds or fails.
>>
>> The operation should succeed for any valid configuration, and fail 
>> for any invalid
>> on.
>>
>> The current piecemeal approach seems even less fitting if we consider 
>> changing the
>> access controls of a running guest. AFAIK changing access controls 
>> for a running
>> guest is possible, and I don't see a reason why should we 
>> artificially prohibit this.
>>
>> I think the current sysfs interface for manipulating the matrix is 
>> good for
>> manual playing around, but I would prefer having an interface that is 
>> better
>> suited for programs (e.g. ioctl).
>
> I disagree with using ioctl.
> I agree that the current implementation is not right.
> The configuration of APM and AQM should always be guarantied as coherent
> within the host but it can be done doing the right checks when using 
> the sysfs.

What sysfs interfaces do you suggest?

>
>
> Regards,
>
> Pierre
>