On 11/29/19 3:48 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 29.11.19 15:39, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 29.11.19 15:38, Janosch Frank wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>>> As we now have two interfaces to achieve the same thing (initial reset),
>>>>>> I do wonder if we should simply introduce
>>>>>>
>>>>>> KVM_S390_NORMAL_RESET
>>>>>> KVM_S390_CLEAR_RESET
>>>>>>
>>>>>> instead ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you can do KVM_S390_NORMAL_RESET for the bugfix and
>>>>>> KVM_S390_CLEAR_RESET later for PV.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does anything speak against that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Apart from loosing one more ioctl number probably not
>>>>
>>>> Do we care? (I think not, but maybe I am missing something :) )
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't, maybe somebody else does
>>> Btw. I'm struggling to find a good name for the capability:
>>> KVM_CAP_S390_VCPU_ADDITIONAL_RESETS ?
>>
>> KVM_CAP_S390_VCPU_RESETS ?
> 
> Either that or two separate ones if you're not going to introduce them
> at the same time ...
> 

This is starting to get messy...