From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com ([207.211.31.81]:52077 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726808AbfK2Osz (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Nov 2019 09:48:55 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: s390: Add new reset vcpu API 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> From: David Hildenbrand Message-ID: <487af903-bb8c-a7c5-b81d-dc0ce1bb7b75@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 15:48:41 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <708d16c2-fa18-8ab9-afb5-44b5af638cb4@de.ibm.com> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Christian Borntraeger , Janosch Frank , kvm@vger.kernel.org Cc: thuth@redhat.com, mihajlov@linux.ibm.com, cohuck@redhat.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org On 29.11.19 15:39, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > On 29.11.19 15:38, Janosch Frank wrote: > [...] >>>>> As we now have two interfaces to achieve the same thing (initial reset), >>>>> 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? >>>> >>>> Apart from loosing one more ioctl number probably not >>> >>> Do we care? (I think not, but maybe I am missing something :) ) >>> >> >> 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 ? > > KVM_CAP_S390_VCPU_RESETS ? Either that or two separate ones if you're not going to introduce them at the same time ... -- Thanks, David / dhildenb