Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] virtio/s390: add indirection to indicators access

Cornelia Huck
2019-05-27T12:10:29Z

On Mon, 27 May 2019 13:57:06 +0200
Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 27 May 2019 13:00:28 +0200
> Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 23 May 2019 18:22:07 +0200
> > Michael Mueller <mimu@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
> > >
> > > 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 <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > > 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.