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 4F0B4C4321D for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 10:25:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032702150F for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 10:25:36 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 032702150F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728603AbeHWNyg (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:54:36 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:52242 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726500AbeHWNyg (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:54:36 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4F7240241EE; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 10:25:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gondolin (dhcp-192-222.str.redhat.com [10.33.192.222]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F345A9F02; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 10:25:27 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:25:25 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck To: Tony Krowiak Cc: Halil Pasic , Christian Borntraeger , pmorel@linux.ibm.com, Tony Krowiak , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, freude@de.ibm.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, kwankhede@nvidia.com, bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com, pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com, alifm@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mjrosato@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jjherne@linux.vnet.ibm.com, thuth@redhat.com, pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com, berrange@redhat.com, fiuczy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, buendgen@de.ibm.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 12/22] s390: vfio-ap: sysfs interfaces to configure control domains Message-ID: <20180823122525.02fc4af3.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <9ef5fcb9-02e0-88e3-007c-eedb14e6db80@linux.ibm.com> References: <1534196899-16987-1-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1534196899-16987-13-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180820162317.08bd7d23.cohuck@redhat.com> <660de00a-c403-28c1-4df4-82a973ab3ad5@linux.ibm.com> <20180821172548.57a6c758.cohuck@redhat.com> <82a391ee-85b1-cdc7-0f9b-d37fd8ba8e47@linux.ibm.com> <20180822114250.59a250aa.cohuck@redhat.com> <8bc5f207-f913-825c-f9fc-0a2c7fd280aa@linux.ibm.com> <219b352b-d5a2-189c-e205-82e7f9ae3d64@de.ibm.com> <9ef5fcb9-02e0-88e3-007c-eedb14e6db80@linux.ibm.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 10.11.54.5 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.7]); Thu, 23 Aug 2018 10:25:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: inspected by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.7]); Thu, 23 Aug 2018 10:25:33 +0000 (UTC) for IP:'10.11.54.5' DOMAIN:'int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com' HELO:'smtp.corp.redhat.com' FROM:'cohuck@redhat.com' RCPT:'' Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 15:16:19 -0400 Tony Krowiak wrote: > One of the things I suggested in a private conversation with Christian > earlier > today was to provide an additional rw sysfs attribute - a boolean - that > indicates > whether all usage domains should also be control domains. The default > could be > true. This would allow one to configure guests with usage-only domains > as well > as satisfy the convention. Would this additional attribute then control "add usage domains to the list of control domains automatically", or "don't allow to add a usage domain if it has not already been added as a control domain"? One thing I'm still unsure about is how libvirt comes into the picture here. Will it consume the setting, or actively manipulate it? [In general, I'm not very clear about how libvirt will interact with the whole infrastructure...]