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 1C113C4321D for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 14:23:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6B3321581 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 14:23:28 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A6B3321581 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 S1726884AbeHTRjQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Aug 2018 13:39:16 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:38234 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726187AbeHTRjQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Aug 2018 13:39:16 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EF33814FDD2; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 14:23:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gondolin (dhcp-192-222.str.redhat.com [10.33.192.222]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C6102026DEF; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 14:23:19 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 16:23:17 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck To: Tony Krowiak Cc: 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, borntraeger@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, Tony Krowiak Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 12/22] s390: vfio-ap: sysfs interfaces to configure control domains Message-ID: <20180820162317.08bd7d23.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1534196899-16987-13-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.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> Organization: Red Hat GmbH MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.11.54.4 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.8]); Mon, 20 Aug 2018 14:23:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: inspected by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.8]); Mon, 20 Aug 2018 14:23:25 +0000 (UTC) for IP:'10.11.54.4' DOMAIN:'int-mx04.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 Mon, 13 Aug 2018 17:48:09 -0400 Tony Krowiak wrote: > From: Tony Krowiak > > Provides the sysfs interfaces for: > > 1. Assigning AP control domains to the mediated matrix device > > 2. Unassigning AP control domains from a mediated matrix device > > 3. Displaying the control domains assigned to a mediated matrix > device > > The IDs of the AP control domains assigned to the mediated matrix > device are stored in an AP domain mask (ADM). The bits in the ADM, > from most significant to least significant bit, correspond to > AP domain numbers 0 to 255. On some systems, the maximum allowable > domain number may be less than 255 - depending upon the host's > AP configuration - and assignment may be rejected if the input > domain ID exceeds the limit. Please remind me of the relationship between control domains and usage domains... IIRC, usage domains allow both requests and configuration, while control domains allow only configuration, and are by convention a superset of usage domains. Is there a hard requirement somewhere in there, or can the admin cheerfully use different masks for usage domains and control domains without the SIE choking on it?