From: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
To: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, Collin Walling <walling@linux.ibm.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] hw/s390x: Fix the function arguments in the pci stub file
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 12:17:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <025ce67d-f39e-b44b-8606-647f8695cbe5@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190211120432.42373d08.cohuck@redhat.com>
On 2019-02-11 12:04, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 11:54:45 +0100
> Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2019-02-11 11:48, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 09:23:56 +0100
>>> Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 07:46:40 +0100
>>>> Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> So I see two options now:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Finally really make the device optional, at least for new machine
>>>>> types, so we can really disable CONFIG_PCI and get a working executable.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Scratch the idea completely to make this optional, always link the
>>>>> s390-pci-bus.o and s390-pci-inst.o files unconditionally, and remove the
>>>>> s390-pci-stub.c file.
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume options 2 is preferred, since we likely rather want to move
>>>>> into the PCI direction in the long run, instead of ignoring it...
>>>>
>>>> I think both options are viable, but option 1 is of course more work.
>>>> The win there is that we could disable an entire subsystem.
>>>>
>>>> I guess that the basic questions are: How important is it that
>>>> subsystems can be compiled out, and do we see a use case for a pci-less
>>>> s390 machine in the future? We really don't want to spend much time on
>>>> something of dubious use...
>>>
>>> Any thoughts on this?
>>>
>>> I'm currently tending towards option 2 (and can cook up a patch for
>>> that). Unless someone is already working on option 1 :)
>>
>> Since nobody currently has a need to completely disable PCI, I think we
>> should go with option 2.
>
> Hm... I'm wondering if we also should move S390_FEAT_ZPCI from the max
> cpu model to the qemu cpu model (is there any reason not to turn it on
> by default in tcg?)
Migration compatibility? Wouldn't that cause problems when migrating
back to older versions of QEMU?
Thomas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-11 11:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-31 17:47 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] hw/s390x: Fix the function arguments in the pci stub file Thomas Huth
2019-01-31 17:56 ` Cornelia Huck
2019-01-31 18:00 ` Thomas Huth
2019-01-31 18:08 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-02-01 6:14 ` Thomas Huth
2019-02-01 6:46 ` Thomas Huth
2019-02-01 8:23 ` Cornelia Huck
2019-02-11 10:48 ` Cornelia Huck
2019-02-11 10:54 ` Thomas Huth
2019-02-11 11:04 ` Cornelia Huck
2019-02-11 11:17 ` Thomas Huth [this message]
2019-02-11 11:20 ` Cornelia Huck
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=025ce67d-f39e-b44b-8606-647f8695cbe5@redhat.com \
--to=thuth@redhat.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-s390x@nongnu.org \
--cc=walling@linux.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).