Il 19/08/2014 12:09, Christian Borntraeger ha scritto: >> I'm not sure, this does seem like a workaround for another >> limitation after all... Gleb? > > Yes. We want to get rid of KVM_S390_INITIAL_RESET in QEMU. This comes > from a time, when we had another userspace prototype for KVM on s390 > (kuli). Its really a wart that has to go. Its just that we are not > there yet to remove the call to KVM_S390_INITIAL_RESET. Doing so can > result in hard to debug errors after reboot, if an interrupt was made > pending just before reboot that gets delivered in the new instance. > > The new way for local interrupt read/write will probably be some > onereg or syncreg interface with a bitmask register and payload > registers. We have to solve some concurrency and implemenation issues > here. Yes, I understand; the plan is fine and it's good that it was already on your todo list. But since you acknowledge that KVM_S390_INITIAL_RESET will go, I'm not sure we want to apply this patch (except for the pid == 0 part, of course---that one is good). Paolo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
