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=-0.8 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 AA5A9C43382 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 13:12:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FCC02156D for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 13:12:53 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5FCC02156D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.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 S1727574AbeI0TbD (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Sep 2018 15:31:03 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:43236 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727487AbeI0TbD (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Sep 2018 15:31:03 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w8RD9wLD006060 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 09:12:49 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com (e31.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.149]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2mrxt7kk0s-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 09:12:49 -0400 Received: from localhost by e31.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 07:12:48 -0600 Received: from b03cxnp07028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.130.15) by e31.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.131) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Thu, 27 Sep 2018 07:12:45 -0600 Received: from b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.235]) by b03cxnp07028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id w8RDCgpd59113660 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 27 Sep 2018 06:12:42 -0700 Received: from b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55B3078063; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 07:12:42 -0600 (MDT) Received: from b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FAC27805E; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 07:12:39 -0600 (MDT) Received: from oc8043147753.ibm.com (unknown [9.85.201.36]) by b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 07:12:39 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 26/26] s390: doc: detailed specifications for AP virtualization To: Christian Borntraeger , Cornelia Huck , Halil Pasic Cc: Alex Williamson , 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, 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 References: <20180925231641.4954-1-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180925231641.4954-27-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180926164222.74731b74@t450s.home> <20180927135141.0fa87f2c.cohuck@redhat.com> From: Tony Krowiak Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 09:12:39 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18092713-8235-0000-0000-00000E07CB64 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00009781; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000267; SDB=6.01094400; UDB=6.00565721; IPR=6.00874436; MB=3.00023530; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2018-09-27 13:12:47 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18092713-8236-0000-0000-000042CA4BB2 Message-Id: <0c036788-9d0e-90b2-8708-98f7ff4036ad@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-09-27_07:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1807170000 definitions=main-1809270130 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/27/2018 07:59 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > On 09/27/2018 01:51 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 13:29:43 +0200 >> Halil Pasic wrote: >> >>> On 09/27/2018 12:42 AM, Alex Williamson wrote: >>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 19:16:41 -0400 >>>> Tony Krowiak wrote: >>>>> + This is how the matrix is configured for Guest2: >>>>> + >>>>> + echo 5 > assign_adapter >>>>> + echo 0x47 > assign_domain >>>>> + echo 0xff > assign_domain >>>>> + >>>>> + This is how the matrix is configured for Guest3: >>>>> + >>>>> + echo 6 > assign_adapter >>>>> + echo 0x47 > assign_domain >>>>> + echo 0xff > assign_domain >>>>> + >>>> >>>> I'm curious why this interface didn't adopt the +/- notation invented >>>> above for consistency. Too difficult to do rollbacks with a string on >>>> entries? >>>> >>> >>> I remember that we did discuss that possibility around v9, but I can't >>> tell why did we decide to not implement it. Maybe Tony has an answer. >> >> IIRC, that was a discussion on the base ap driver interfaces rather >> than vfio-ap. >> >>> >>> Anyway, if we were to do that, we would use different attribute names >>> (e.g. just domain_mask, or something similar instead of >>> (assign|unassign)_xxx). So I think such an interface can still be added >>> on top of the existing one. Having that said having multiple interfaces >>> for the very same thing is usually not so nice IMHO. >> >> Nod to all of your points. >> >> As we do the configuration while the guest is not running anyway, the >> different interfaces probably do not make that much difference in >> practice. It should be fine to stick to the current interface for now >> and only add a new one if we really think it is significantly better. > > Tony, can you maybe provide a quick on-top patch that clarifies Alex > comments regarding the documentation? (State that is is big endian, > fixup the small things etc). > I can then either fold it in or provide it as an on top patch depending > on how much has changed. Will do. >