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=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 9A896C433E4 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 11:35:21 +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 70D3F206E9 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 11:35:21 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 70D3F206E9 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]:53750 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jvfh2-0001o5-Ko for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 07:35:20 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42414) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jvfgN-0001Ma-CK; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 07:34:39 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:58412) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jvfgK-0007Qf-Qb; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 07:34:39 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06FB3jg5138019; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 07:34:34 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 329uehaq4q-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 15 Jul 2020 07:34:34 -0400 Received: from m0098393.ppops.net (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 06FBVtmj084687; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 07:34:34 -0400 Received: from ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (63.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.99]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 329uehaq3b-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 15 Jul 2020 07:34:34 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06FBTnBd030300; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 11:34:30 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay13.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.198]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 329nmygk0c-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 15 Jul 2020 11:34:30 +0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 06FBYRuZ59375710 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 15 Jul 2020 11:34:28 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFE4411C064; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 11:34:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6955811C05C; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 11:34:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from osiris (unknown [9.171.91.154]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 11:34:27 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 13:34:26 +0200 From: Heiko Carstens To: David Hildenbrand Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/5] s390x: implement diag260 Message-ID: <20200715113426.GD6927@osiris> References: <20200713091243.GB4359@osiris> <07E9FD5B-F07F-415B-9C00-A2A882F07CBC@redhat.com> <92b1a2a6-2348-d4ff-6d20-35f3bfef710a@de.ibm.com> <20200715104348.GB6927@osiris> <3c163740-6299-a3dd-8b4d-58a5be123b0e@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3c163740-6299-a3dd-8b4d-58a5be123b0e@redhat.com> X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-15_10:2020-07-15, 2020-07-15 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=1 mlxlogscore=904 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007150093 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=148.163.156.1; envelope-from=hca@linux.ibm.com; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/07/15 05:41:23 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -35 X-Spam_score: -3.6 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1, 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: Thomas Huth , Janosch Frank , "Michael S . Tsirkin" , Cornelia Huck , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Halil Pasic , Christian Borntraeger , qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, Claudio Imbrenda , Richard Henderson Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 01:21:06PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > At least in v4.1 the kernel will calculate the max address by using > > increment size * increment number and then test if *each* increment is > > available with tprot. > > Yes, we do the same in kvm-unit-tests. But it's not sufficient for > memory devices. > > Just because a tprot succeed (for memory belonging to a memory device) > does not mean the kernel should silently start to use that memory. > > Note: memory devices are not just DIMMs that can be mapped to storage > increments. The memory might have completely different semantics, that's > why they are glued to a managing virtio device. > > For example: a tprot might succeed on a memory region provided by > virtio-mem, this does, however, not mean that the memory can (and > should) be used by the guest. So, are you saying that even at IPL time there might already be memory devices attached to the system? And the kernel should _not_ treat them as normal memory?