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=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 CD4EAC433DB for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:53:42 +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 231F621973 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:53:41 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 231F621973 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:53848 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l2e9M-0008Qe-Qr for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:53:40 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36168) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l2e6r-0006aw-8W for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:51:05 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.124]:51406) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l2e6p-0005eW-38 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:51:05 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1611251459; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=D5BIrqjqDF9+3EB8gyBBE01Jtt3rjKarhDJErRHUg2g=; b=JP9l1wLoOFwLMYvOUIyhvjEIMAJN8NczeCOGWQiLjnoSSKHr3K1dhLBhufoN84RCfVHfAi 7vQjhMUO8LUD/60iqokS/PR7vxQheXOi8SEn12P/iWYWrMdVOof+saJlCowJR6VuzrLBrd 2gei/4+H0I+hm1MjvzKqon+MU4geQ4s= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-314-JjzyjrAkMHa5X47odU_ilA-1; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:50:54 -0500 X-MC-Unique: JjzyjrAkMHa5X47odU_ilA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9868D8144E0; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:50:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gondolin (ovpn-113-94.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.113.94]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FBD977BE2; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:50:39 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 18:50:36 +0100 From: Cornelia Huck To: Niklas Schnelle Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] s390x/pci: Fixing s390 vfio-pci ISM support Message-ID: <20210121185036.41fde30c.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <9522792d-6677-eed4-f480-4efaaf00dd51@linux.ibm.com> References: <1611089059-6468-1-git-send-email-mjrosato@linux.ibm.com> <511aebd3-fc4f-d7d3-32c2-27720fb38fe8@linux.ibm.com> <15dbd981-7dda-2526-8f13-52ead6298ef1@linux.ibm.com> <914d4af3-32ee-e300-9738-92aececa81d6@linux.ibm.com> <789388f4-983b-2810-7f46-ce7f07022a66@linux.ibm.com> <213c00ca-1b8f-ecee-dd22-d86cad8eb63b@linux.ibm.com> <4a3e13fe-ec6a-27bc-7f30-9ad9691a4522@linux.ibm.com> <9522792d-6677-eed4-f480-4efaaf00dd51@linux.ibm.com> Organization: Red Hat GmbH MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=cohuck@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=63.128.21.124; envelope-from=cohuck@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -29 X-Spam_score: -3.0 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.0 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.168, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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, Pierre Morel , Matthew Rosato , david@redhat.com, mst@redhat.com, richard.henderson@linaro.org, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pasic@linux.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 15:54:22 +0100 Niklas Schnelle wrote: > On 1/21/21 3:46 PM, Pierre Morel wrote: > > > > > > On 1/21/21 2:37 PM, Niklas Schnelle wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 1/21/21 1:30 PM, Pierre Morel wrote: > > > >>>> > >>>> Just wanted to say that we've had a very similar discussion with > >>>> Cornelia end of last year and came to the conclusion that explicitly > >>>> matching the PFT is likely the safest bet: > >>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/12/22/479 > >>> > >>> What I see there is a discussion on the relation between relaxed access and MIO without explaining to Connie that we have in the kernel the possibility to know if a device support MIO or not independently of it supports the relaxed access. > >>> > >>> The all point here is about taking decisions for the right reasons. > >>> > >>> We have the possibility to take the decision based on functionalities and not on a specific PCI function. > >> > >> Yes but that goes both ways the functionality of the region has to match > >> that of the device and at least in it's current state the regions functionality > >> matches only ISM in a way that is so specific that it is very unlikely to match anything > >> else. For example it can't support a PCI device that requires non-MIO but > >> also MSI-X. In its current form it doesn't even support PCI Store only PCI Store > >> Block, we had that in an earlier version and it's trivial but then we get the MSI-X > >> problem. > > > > > > What does that change if we take one or the other solution considering the checking of MIO/MSIX/relax versus PFT? > > > If it's !MIO && !MSIX && relax_align I'm fine with that check but > then we should also add PCISTG to the region. > Just to double check: that would today cover only ISM (which doesn't use PCISTG), correct? /me getting a bit lost in this discussion :)