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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS 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 84E4EC04AB7 for ; Tue, 14 May 2019 09:33:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5957A2147A for ; Tue, 14 May 2019 09:33:06 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5957A2147A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44140 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQTo1-0003uT-MI for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 14 May 2019 05:33:05 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:38642) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQTlI-000286-7y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 May 2019 05:30:17 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQTlH-0000dR-Au for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 May 2019 05:30:16 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:32922) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQTlH-0000cd-4n; Tue, 14 May 2019 05:30:15 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2621E87648; Tue, 14 May 2019 09:30:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gondolin (dhcp-192-222.str.redhat.com [10.33.192.222]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 530DC5D729; Tue, 14 May 2019 09:30:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 11:30:05 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck To: David Hildenbrand Message-ID: <20190514113005.2d0c2b1c.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <078b7bcd-de03-743d-a150-456be0b09362@redhat.com> References: <1556749903-19221-1-git-send-email-walling@linux.ibm.com> <09293a1c-d000-83a8-46b8-b97ad4fa9774@de.ibm.com> <56e3ace1-6e48-0e20-47d5-b07ac6dfcf31@redhat.com> <20190513134637.3d8bb275.cohuck@redhat.com> <898144e3-615e-5074-fb68-bf9995c64609@de.ibm.com> <155d2ca3-6a48-c99a-fe42-dca8e3fd4344@redhat.com> <066c7470-94a3-a922-9a12-1ca42e474c51@de.ibm.com> <20190514104934.6bba9232.cohuck@redhat.com> <47f7134b-338f-0207-88ae-4c1969be3786@redhat.com> <13b0f0b2-f7c7-01fb-0e17-92bd47d9c346@de.ibm.com> <00b5d031-227b-38f7-9512-e36c3b655c62@de.ibm.com> <27bd36e1-a102-e793-6a61-3e7acb6f1255@de.ibm.com> <078b7bcd-de03-743d-a150-456be0b09362@redhat.com> Organization: Red Hat GmbH MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.26]); Tue, 14 May 2019 09:30:14 +0000 (UTC) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu-s390x] [PATCH v4] s390: diagnose 318 info reset and migration support X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Collin Walling , mst@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pasic@linux.ibm.com, Christian Borntraeger , qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, rth@twiddle.net Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Tue, 14 May 2019 11:27:32 +0200 David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 14.05.19 11:25, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > > > > On 14.05.19 11:23, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 14.05.19 11:20, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >>> On 14.05.19 11:10, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 14.05.19 10:59, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >>>>> We can > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. Fail to start with #cpus > 240 when diag318=on > >>>>> 2. Remove the error once we support more than one SCLP response page > >>>>> > >>>>> Or > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. Allow to start with #cpus > 240 when diag318=on, but indicate only > >>>>> 240 CPUs via SCLP > >>>>> 2. Print a warning > >>>>> 3. Remove the restriction and the warning once we support more than one > >>>>> SCLP response page > >>>>> > >>>>> While I prefer the second approach (similar to defining zPCI devices > >>>>> without zpci=on), I could also live with the first approach. > >>>> > >>>> I prefer approach 1. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Isn't approach #2 what we discussed (limiting sclp, but of course to 247 > >>> CPUs), but with an additional warning? I'm confused. > >> > >> Different numbering interpretion. I was talking about 1 = "Allow to start with #cpus > 240 when diag318=on, but indicate only > >> 240 CPUs via SCLP" > > > > So yes, variant 2 when I use your numbering. The only question is: do we need > > a warning? It probably does not hurt. > > After all, we are talking about 1 VCPU that the guest can only use by > indirect probing ... I leave that up to Collin :) I'd prefer a warning... even if it is a corner case, I think it's better to be explicit instead of silent.