On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 09:26:11 +0100 Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am 03.02.2015 um 16:22 schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > > > > > > On 03/02/2015 16:16, Thomas Huth wrote: > >> Actually, I'd prefer to keep the "virtual" in the defines for the type > >> of operation below: When it comes to s390 storage keys, we likely might > >> need some calls for reading and writing to physical memory, too. Then > >> we could simply extend this ioctl instead of inventing a new one. > > Rereading that. Shall we replace "virtual" with "logical"? That is what is > used architecturally when we mean "do whatever is appropriate right now" > That can boil down to virtual via DAT, virtual via access register mode, > real if DAT is off... and if fact your kernel implementation does that. True, but so far I tried to avoid to include s390-only wording into this ioctl in case other architectures might need such a functionality later, too (then this ioctl could be simply used there, too). OTOH, maybe the memory model on s390 is just too special to try to keep this ioctl generic ... but then I guess I also should rename the define KVM_GUEST_MEM_OP into KVM_S390_GUEST_MEM_OP, for example? Thomas -- 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
