From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Reply-To: mimu@linux.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] virtio/s390: add indirection to indicators access References: <20190523162209.9543-1-mimu@linux.ibm.com> <20190523162209.9543-7-mimu@linux.ibm.com> <20190527130028.62e1f7d7.cohuck@redhat.com> <20190527135706.34837062.pasic@linux.ibm.com> <20190527141029.102f838a.cohuck@redhat.com> From: Michael Mueller Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 13:05:41 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190527141029.102f838a.cohuck@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <08e56ae6-28ed-52ae-62ec-fde786949500@linux.ibm.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Cornelia Huck , Halil Pasic Cc: KVM Mailing List , Linux-S390 Mailing List , Sebastian Ott , Heiko Carstens , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, "Michael S . Tsirkin" , Christoph Hellwig , Thomas Huth , Christian Borntraeger , Viktor Mihajlovski , Vasily Gorbik , Janosch Frank , Claudio Imbrenda , Farhan Ali , Eric Farman , Pierre Morel List-ID: On 27.05.19 14:10, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Mon, 27 May 2019 13:57:06 +0200 > Halil Pasic wrote: > >> On Mon, 27 May 2019 13:00:28 +0200 >> Cornelia Huck wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 23 May 2019 18:22:07 +0200 >>> Michael Mueller wrote: >>> >>>> From: Halil Pasic >>>> >>>> This will come in handy soon when we pull out the indicators from >>>> virtio_ccw_device to a memory area that is shared with the hypervisor >>>> (in particular for protected virtualization guests). >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic >>>> Reviewed-by: Pierre Morel >>>> --- >>>> drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- >>>> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) >>>> >>> >>>> @@ -338,17 +348,17 @@ static void virtio_ccw_drop_indicator(struct virtio_ccw_device *vcdev, >>>> ccw->cda = (__u32)(unsigned long) thinint_area; >>>> } else { >>>> /* payload is the address of the indicators */ >>>> - indicatorp = kmalloc(sizeof(&vcdev->indicators), >>>> + indicatorp = kmalloc(sizeof(indicators(vcdev)), >>>> GFP_DMA | GFP_KERNEL); >>>> if (!indicatorp) >>>> return; >>>> *indicatorp = 0; >>>> ccw->cmd_code = CCW_CMD_SET_IND; >>>> - ccw->count = sizeof(&vcdev->indicators); >>>> + ccw->count = sizeof(indicators(vcdev)); >>>> ccw->cda = (__u32)(unsigned long) indicatorp; >>>> } >>>> /* Deregister indicators from host. */ >>>> - vcdev->indicators = 0; >>>> + *indicators(vcdev) = 0; >>> >>> I'm not too hot about this notation, but it's not wrong and a minor >>> thing :) >> >> I don't have any better ideas :/ >> >>> >>>> ccw->flags = 0; >>>> ret = ccw_io_helper(vcdev, ccw, >>>> vcdev->is_thinint ? >>> >>> Patch looks reasonable and not dependent on the other patches here. >>> >> >> looks reasonable == r-b? >> >> Not dependent in a sense that this patch could be made a first patch in >> the series. A subsequent patch depends on it. > > What is the plan with these patches? I can either pick patch 5+6 and > let them go through the virtio tree, or give my r-b and let them go > through the s390 tree. The former is probably the quicker route, but > the latter has less potential for dependency issues. please give your r-b then for these. > Michael