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=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no 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 5A514C432C3 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:45:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (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 3064A206F4 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:45:35 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3064A206F4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:57716 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iVFRF-00078K-Pr for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 08:45:33 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36211) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iVFOf-0005K7-EF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 08:42:55 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iVFOd-0002vA-HT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 08:42:53 -0500 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:60924) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iVFOc-0002uc-6l for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 08:42:50 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0127361.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id xAEDg2xZ101417 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 08:42:49 -0500 Received: from e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.98]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2w92jm2ad0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 08:42:47 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:42:40 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.198) by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.132) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:42:38 -0000 Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.232]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id xAEDgbZQ52625610 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:42:37 GMT Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4765052050; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:42:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc2783563651 (unknown [9.152.224.41]) by d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9E235204E; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:42:36 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 14:42:35 +0100 From: Halil Pasic To: Cornelia Huck Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] s390x: kvm-unit-tests: a PONG device for Sub Channels tests In-Reply-To: <20191114141915.6dd5b9c8.cohuck@redhat.com> References: <1573671753-15115-1-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <20191114113823.5d752648.cohuck@redhat.com> <20191114140235.30a788d6.pasic@linux.ibm.com> <20191114141915.6dd5b9c8.cohuck@redhat.com> Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19111413-0008-0000-0000-0000032EFE3C X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19111413-0009-0000-0000-00004A4E0D16 Message-Id: <20191114144235.3bec510e.pasic@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-11-14_03:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1910280000 definitions=main-1911140127 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 148.163.158.5 X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: thuth@redhat.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com, Pierre Morel , david@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 14:19:15 +0100 Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 14:02:35 +0100 > Halil Pasic wrote: > > > On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 11:38:23 +0100 > > Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 20:02:33 +0100 > > > Pierre Morel wrote: > > > > > > Minor nit for $SUBJECT: this isn't a kvm-unit-tests patch, that's just > > > one consumer :) > > > > And subchannel is one word in s390-speak. > > > > > > > > > [..] > > > > > Some questions regarding this device and its intended usage: > > > > > > - What are you trying to test? Basic ccw processing, or something more > > > specific? Is there any way you can use the kvm-unit-test > > > infrastructure to test basic processing with an existing device? > > > > I'm also curious about the big picture (what is in scope and what out > > of scope). Your design should be evaluated in the light of intended > > usage. > > > > BTW have you had a look at this abandoned patch-set of mine: > > > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-11/msg04220.html > > Do you recall why it was abandoned? Or did we just forget to follow up > on it? > I think I do remember. Priorities. Some colleagues were supposed to take over the job of making proper tests for this device -- the part that is now intended to be played by kvm-uni-tests. But they never got to actually start working on it. And my tests for IDA are just a kernel module -- i.e. nothing sustainable. So without proper exploitation, and with no time to do a proper test suite myself, I decided to not invest any more for the time beeing. > > > > We made some different design decisions, while aiming essentially for the > > same. Maybe it's due to different scope, maybe not. For instance one > > can't test IDA with PONG, I guess. > > Now that I saw this again, I also recall the discussion of comparing it > with the "testdev" for pci/isa. Anybody knows if these are used by > kvm-unit-tests? > I don't. Regards, Halil > > > > Regards, > > Halil > > > > > - Who is instantiating this device? Only the kvm-unit-test? > > > - Can you instantiate multiple instances? Does that make sense? If yes, > > > it should probably not request a new chpid every time :) > > > - What happens if someone instantiates this by hand? The only drawback > > > is that it uses up a subchannel and a chpid, right? > > > - Do you plan to make this hotpluggable later? > > > > > > > > > >