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=-3.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_NEOMUTT 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 DCBB1C072A4 for ; Wed, 22 May 2019 08:44:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCA2E20821 for ; Wed, 22 May 2019 08:44:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728773AbfEVIoV (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 May 2019 04:44:21 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47566 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727946AbfEVIoV (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 May 2019 04:44:21 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DCDC3082E42; Wed, 22 May 2019 08:44:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kamzik.brq.redhat.com (ovpn-204-233.brq.redhat.com [10.40.204.233]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33C00600C6; Wed, 22 May 2019 08:44:14 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 10:44:09 +0200 From: Andrew Jones To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Thomas Huth , Christian Borntraeger , Janosch Frank , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= , Shuah Khan , David Hildenbrand , Cornelia Huck , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] KVM selftests for s390x Message-ID: <20190522084409.qz5hs7lqj65qg6x5@kamzik.brq.redhat.com> References: <20190516111253.4494-1-thuth@redhat.com> <9423ba89-b10e-5e6e-3cc8-8088f3088233@redhat.com> <4d94124e-00f6-aa65-3a4a-bd8910480329@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4d94124e-00f6-aa65-3a4a-bd8910480329@redhat.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.46]); Wed, 22 May 2019 08:44:21 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 01:43:06PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 20/05/19 13:30, Thomas Huth wrote: > >> No objections at all, though it would be like to have ucall plumbed in > >> from the beginning. > > I'm still looking at the ucall interface ... what I don't quite get yet > > is the question why the ucall_type there is selectable during runtime? > > > > Are there plans to have test that could either use UCALL_PIO or > > UCALL_MMIO? If not, what about moving ucall_init() and ucall() to > > architecture specific code in tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/ > > and tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64 instead, and to remove the > > ucall_type stuff again (so that x86 is hard-wired to PIO and aarch64 > > is hard-wired to MMIO)? ... then I could add a DIAG-based ucall > > on s390x more easily, I think. > > Yes, that would work. I think Andrew wanted the flexibility to use MMIO > on x86, but it's not really necessary to have it. If the flexibility isn't necessary, then I agree that it'll be nicer to put the ucall_init() in arch setup code, avoiding the need to remember it in each unit test. Thanks, drew From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: drjones at redhat.com (Andrew Jones) Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 10:44:09 +0200 Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/4] KVM selftests for s390x In-Reply-To: <4d94124e-00f6-aa65-3a4a-bd8910480329@redhat.com> References: <20190516111253.4494-1-thuth@redhat.com> <9423ba89-b10e-5e6e-3cc8-8088f3088233@redhat.com> <4d94124e-00f6-aa65-3a4a-bd8910480329@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20190522084409.qz5hs7lqj65qg6x5@kamzik.brq.redhat.com> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 01:43:06PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 20/05/19 13:30, Thomas Huth wrote: > >> No objections at all, though it would be like to have ucall plumbed in > >> from the beginning. > > I'm still looking at the ucall interface ... what I don't quite get yet > > is the question why the ucall_type there is selectable during runtime? > > > > Are there plans to have test that could either use UCALL_PIO or > > UCALL_MMIO? If not, what about moving ucall_init() and ucall() to > > architecture specific code in tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/ > > and tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64 instead, and to remove the > > ucall_type stuff again (so that x86 is hard-wired to PIO and aarch64 > > is hard-wired to MMIO)? ... then I could add a DIAG-based ucall > > on s390x more easily, I think. > > Yes, that would work. I think Andrew wanted the flexibility to use MMIO > on x86, but it's not really necessary to have it. If the flexibility isn't necessary, then I agree that it'll be nicer to put the ucall_init() in arch setup code, avoiding the need to remember it in each unit test. Thanks, drew From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: drjones@redhat.com (Andrew Jones) Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 10:44:09 +0200 Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/4] KVM selftests for s390x In-Reply-To: <4d94124e-00f6-aa65-3a4a-bd8910480329@redhat.com> References: <20190516111253.4494-1-thuth@redhat.com> <9423ba89-b10e-5e6e-3cc8-8088f3088233@redhat.com> <4d94124e-00f6-aa65-3a4a-bd8910480329@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20190522084409.qz5hs7lqj65qg6x5@kamzik.brq.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <20190522084409.IcrsLkyI2SfDD-8uLiUdxdBNRkFYFXXSpl1ungrezfw@z> On Mon, May 20, 2019@01:43:06PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 20/05/19 13:30, Thomas Huth wrote: > >> No objections at all, though it would be like to have ucall plumbed in > >> from the beginning. > > I'm still looking at the ucall interface ... what I don't quite get yet > > is the question why the ucall_type there is selectable during runtime? > > > > Are there plans to have test that could either use UCALL_PIO or > > UCALL_MMIO? If not, what about moving ucall_init() and ucall() to > > architecture specific code in tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/ > > and tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64 instead, and to remove the > > ucall_type stuff again (so that x86 is hard-wired to PIO and aarch64 > > is hard-wired to MMIO)? ... then I could add a DIAG-based ucall > > on s390x more easily, I think. > > Yes, that would work. I think Andrew wanted the flexibility to use MMIO > on x86, but it's not really necessary to have it. If the flexibility isn't necessary, then I agree that it'll be nicer to put the ucall_init() in arch setup code, avoiding the need to remember it in each unit test. Thanks, drew