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=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 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 2886CC432C3 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:04:39 +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 022D4206E1 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:04:38 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 022D4206E1 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:57340 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iVEne-0003YI-1q for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 08:04:38 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56290) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iVEmj-00035P-48 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 08:03:43 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iVEmh-0006AD-T3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 08:03:41 -0500 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:24092 helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iVEmh-0006A1-OT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 08:03:39 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098416.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id xAECuhTe177984 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 08:03:39 -0500 Received: from e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.100]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2w95qbmn71-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 08:03:35 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:02:41 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.198) 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, 14 Nov 2019 13:02:38 -0000 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id xAED2bup48824554 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:02:37 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01850AE05A; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:02:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8DEFAE056; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:02:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc2783563651 (unknown [9.152.224.41]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:02:36 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 14:02:35 +0100 From: Halil Pasic To: Cornelia Huck Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] s390x: kvm-unit-tests: a PONG device for Sub Channels tests In-Reply-To: <20191114113823.5d752648.cohuck@redhat.com> References: <1573671753-15115-1-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <20191114113823.5d752648.cohuck@redhat.com> Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19111413-0016-0000-0000-000002C39AB9 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19111413-0017-0000-0000-000033253C91 Message-Id: <20191114140235.30a788d6.pasic@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-11-14_03:, , 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=8.0.1-1910280000 definitions=main-1911140121 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 148.163.158.5 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, frankja@linux.ibm.com, Pierre Morel , david@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 11:38:23 +0100 Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 20:02:33 +0100 > Pierre Morel wrote: > > Minor nit for $SUBJECT: this isn't a kvm-unit-tests patch, that's just > one consumer :) And subchannel is one word in s390-speak. > [..] > Some questions regarding this device and its intended usage: > > - What are you trying to test? Basic ccw processing, or something more > specific? Is there any way you can use the kvm-unit-test > infrastructure to test basic processing with an existing device? I'm also curious about the big picture (what is in scope and what out of scope). Your design should be evaluated in the light of intended usage. BTW have you had a look at this abandoned patch-set of mine: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-11/msg04220.html We made some different design decisions, while aiming essentially for the same. Maybe it's due to different scope, maybe not. For instance one can't test IDA with PONG, I guess. Regards, Halil > - Who is instantiating this device? Only the kvm-unit-test? > - Can you instantiate multiple instances? Does that make sense? If yes, > it should probably not request a new chpid every time :) > - What happens if someone instantiates this by hand? The only drawback > is that it uses up a subchannel and a chpid, right? > - Do you plan to make this hotpluggable later? > >