Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] s390: Storage key global access

["Jason J. Herne" <jjherne@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On 02/25/2014 02:34 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 25.02.2014 20:15, schrieb Christian Borntraeger:
>> On 25/02/14 15:34, Jason J. Herne wrote:
>>
>>> Christian, at one point you mentioned that it might be helpful to see this patch in the context of the rest of the hotplug patches. If you still feel this way let me know and I'll post the 4-patch series. If not, I still propose this one for s390-next. Thanks :).
>>
>> Do you feel your series is ready for upstream, then yet please post the whole series.
>> Posting independent things is good, but I feel that the storage key rework makes more
>> sense if the followup patches make clear why.
>
> I had requested changes to that series that apparently I could not
> communicate in a form Jason could digest, and I have since been caught
> in downstream work and a backlog of other patches, not getting to
> writing the alternative myself yet nor will I the next few days.
>

Andreas,

I believe I understood about 90% of what you were asking for. I had made 
many
of the changes you requested. The last version of my patches can be seen 
here

https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg201796.html

Most of the requested changes should be found within this set of patches.

> An outline of the idea as far as I remember was dropping the ipi array
> instead of refactoring it to dynamic allocation and - having discussed
> that a topology will not be needed - add them as cpu[n] child<s390-cpu>
> properties of /machine, allowing access via QOM property getters instead
> of some self-cooked solution. Open question was link<> or child<>
> property and, if link<>, whether some setter hook in QOM infrastructure
> may be needed to trigger the hot-add or whether QOM realize event will
> be sufficient.

As per your original suggestion to try link<>, I wrote the code to do 
exactly
that. Please see patch 6/8 in the above series.

I have a version of these patches rebased for the latest master, but my test
system is currently in use. I would like a chance to regression test them
before I post them. I anticipate I should be able to do this today.

At your option, you may opt to review the patches as posted at the above 
link.
While some modifications have since been made, the overall design and 
function
is the same.

I look forward to your comments. Thank you for your time.

-- 
-- Jason J. Herne (jjherne@linux.vnet.ibm.com)