From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-2.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.61]:38232 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726057AbfLBIys (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Dec 2019 03:54:48 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 09:54:26 +0100 From: Cornelia Huck Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: s390: Add new reset vcpu API Message-ID: <20191202095426.76386507.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <933de98c-2299-caf8-e237-011164273837@linux.ibm.com> References: <20191129142122.21528-1-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <8e1aa1af-d929-e36b-f341-aa7dbe27f6a4@linux.ibm.com> <227a8fce-7e14-030e-b0a4-17e4521eed98@redhat.com> <708d16c2-fa18-8ab9-afb5-44b5af638cb4@de.ibm.com> <487af903-bb8c-a7c5-b81d-dc0ce1bb7b75@redhat.com> <933de98c-2299-caf8-e237-011164273837@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/ftyxjIK._SdiK3yGLzWuo1I"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Janosch Frank Cc: David Hildenbrand , Christian Borntraeger , kvm@vger.kernel.org, thuth@redhat.com, mihajlov@linux.ibm.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org --Sig_/ftyxjIK._SdiK3yGLzWuo1I Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 15:57:25 +0100 Janosch Frank wrote: > On 11/29/19 3:48 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > On 29.11.19 15:39, Christian Borntraeger wrote: =20 > >> > >> > >> On 29.11.19 15:38, Janosch Frank wrote: > >> [...] =20 > >>>>>> As we now have two interfaces to achieve the same thing (initial r= eset), > >>>>>> I do wonder if we should simply introduce > >>>>>> > >>>>>> KVM_S390_NORMAL_RESET > >>>>>> KVM_S390_CLEAR_RESET > >>>>>> > >>>>>> instead ... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Then you can do KVM_S390_NORMAL_RESET for the bugfix and > >>>>>> KVM_S390_CLEAR_RESET later for PV. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Does anything speak against that? =20 > >>>>> > >>>>> Apart from loosing one more ioctl number probably not =20 > >>>> > >>>> Do we care? (I think not, but maybe I am missing something :) ) > >>>> =20 > >>> > >>> I don't, maybe somebody else does > >>> Btw. I'm struggling to find a good name for the capability: > >>> KVM_CAP_S390_VCPU_ADDITIONAL_RESETS ? =20 > >> > >> KVM_CAP_S390_VCPU_RESETS ? =20 > >=20 > > Either that or two separate ones if you're not going to introduce them > > at the same time ... > > =20 >=20 > This is starting to get messy... In order to reduce the mess, simply introduce them at the same time? I might be missing something, but is there anything speaking against it, as you can simply invoke the initial reset handler for clear reset for now? Also: KVM_CAP_S390_ENHANCED_VCPU_RESETS, maybe? --Sig_/ftyxjIK._SdiK3yGLzWuo1I Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEw9DWbcNiT/aowBjO3s9rk8bwL68FAl3k0UIACgkQ3s9rk8bw L6/5KQ//a7AU3AS3/kInhoHvJWIZmZUMyNC9h2O//HSlS+2jRuyl/5tCW2j4CXCM fN7PHF9xIoMa0IMqMJOFkJzyM0g1sQUXBQhHhZ7rpd8eoAjCiE2spmputIHD+4Ne UYXL0bTCUEd6KVJ3d5Re6XPIQzWi3VJd+SYU7SAp6UTV5FzX3of/RMQmKs8WKPBh 4WE6ghlQorgDnjSelmXCGav93Db/PnvX8/Z+WXdjyBvJDdvtEz2gYthnWaOS9oUf /kX+sZKaOoaaKpzYx019biQwivJLVpySAkEAMXyatoXgJBci0xXKobc3QaWD3Hv/ 8FhnpdmhOG4eUNUa9hVDJA6XV2nMFMW70JxWekIqG366wuVA8FaNliH5k0toed12 UMrIiLjLnkvNwSW70Bd11BLiP09ZdgkVHwOfY5ezkZJgI2D8iK+BhNd5XGQFsWJh bP2/s4/mLa0iLR8EAg2XQ90Ug4MvaXYM8ORykYwvjOAA/HVe5hrpoUMd74EmzSkl Fao7V2OKLY3RjbN+joBcbbf5lmowOXdrbBkP1tpl37FIoLc0eOr/bIiBE2Oijbdm kdy+5FUuHMQS72k/EhHsSNIwSl2s/UWs29sNDErNvmV3KoWaAL4+mnU0SeLbY52p yIdOn3W/SUmdhUtx3nw4hUisvxNbzuh8zBy3tuAqLe3aq7cbGkU= =OOa8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/ftyxjIK._SdiK3yGLzWuo1I--