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 6BD6BC4321D for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 11:44:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25DDA20841 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 11:44:52 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 25DDA20841 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 S1732080AbeHWPOK (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Aug 2018 11:14:10 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:46018 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728588AbeHWPOK (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Aug 2018 11:14:10 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098416.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w7NBiGQq087677 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 07:44:48 -0400 Received: from e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.100]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2m1uf128jq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 07:44:48 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:44:46 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.197) by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.134) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:44:43 +0100 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id w7NBifUJ42926184 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 23 Aug 2018 11:44:41 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id F17AE4C044; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 14:44:42 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B5D14C040; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 14:44:42 +0100 (BST) Received: from [9.152.224.92] (unknown [9.152.224.92]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 14:44:42 +0100 (BST) Reply-To: pmorel@linux.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 12/22] s390: vfio-ap: sysfs interfaces to configure control domains To: Cornelia Huck Cc: Tony Krowiak , Halil Pasic , Christian Borntraeger , 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 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> <20180823122525.02fc4af3.cohuck@redhat.com> <25a44526-a2d6-c632-6a6d-8ca385925731@linux.ibm.com> <20180823133134.32e1d2f8.cohuck@redhat.com> From: Pierre Morel Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 13:44:40 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180823133134.32e1d2f8.cohuck@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18082311-0016-0000-0000-000001FAAE06 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18082311-0017-0000-0000-0000325108E6 Message-Id: X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-08-23_05:,, 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-1808230126 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 23/08/2018 13:31, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:43:42 +0200 > Pierre Morel wrote: > >> On 23/08/2018 12:25, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>> 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...] >>> >> >> When I read you it convince me that it is not wise to change anything >> that has been already discuss and could impact the Libvirt. > > My main point basically was that we should get feedback from a libvirt > POV :) The new attribute may make sense, or not; but I'm really feeling > a bit in the dark with regard to libvirt. > Me too, this explains my conservative approach ;) -- Pierre Morel Linux/KVM/QEMU in Böblingen - Germany