From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1134DC43381 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 03:23:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7ABE42147C for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 03:23:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=ozlabs.org header.i=@ozlabs.org header.b="Gu8tRS7r" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7ABE42147C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 443Qzk6GVgzDqJk for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:23:14 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from ozlabs.org (bilbo.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 443Qxz72mFzDqHP for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:21:43 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=ozlabs.org header.i=@ozlabs.org header.b="Gu8tRS7r"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1003) id 443Qxz4drrz9sDL; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:21:43 +1100 (AEDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ozlabs.org; s=201707; t=1550546503; bh=C4HLRcI4ypCgdGuAUaWYJlccB1gE29ZZS2GrzcNQN90=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Gu8tRS7rJAFvgDvEDp81cn1xylOlkuDzmL4CtPcfDyOg2uMuaOcv4rZyEGZR7NyzL 958zm0atvwfeQgHGkWrR3/ZVcHfKSX6dNzw3dLCO6idaGwOy6D5imZS/SLY6uxEkjZ OgXG+jWFgIJkqYg7CiNMvkEQRAk1S/+Q1ab59lOddnU3TjH4a1FfGZz4gyQhFZPk3y 6OPkQymMisT2ueB+CIvpVwk5SpZVu6y9op65eLo+Wx/R0cV5Xtz/ri6PpGH3ohBQvR lpGL/drQryVYhBucwTTVlelN9e+fxP6uAUeOSUKTe7yc/nlYv/+WpKiUvWcrqL1Psm Hyya9yfN3sz8w== Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:21:40 +1100 From: Paul Mackerras To: Bharata B Rao Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/4] kvmppc: H_SVM_INIT_START and H_SVM_INIT_DONE hcalls Message-ID: <20190219032140.GA5353@blackberry> References: <20190130060726.29958-1-bharata@linux.ibm.com> <20190130060726.29958-4-bharata@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190130060726.29958-4-bharata@linux.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linuxram@us.ibm.com, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, benh@linux.ibm.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, jglisse@redhat.com, aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, paulus@au1.ibm.com, sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:37:25AM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote: > H_SVM_INIT_START: Initiate securing a VM > H_SVM_INIT_DONE: Conclude securing a VM > > During early guest init, these hcalls will be issued by UV. > As part of these hcalls, [un]register memslots with UV. That last sentence is a bit misleading as it implies that H_SVM_INIT_DONE causes us to unregister the memslots with the UV, which is not the case. Shouldn't it be "As part of H_SVM_INIT_START, register all existing memslots with the UV"? Also, do we subsequently communicate changes in the memslots to the UV? Paul.