On 25.01.2018 16:43, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > On 01/25/2018 04:31 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > [...] >>> struct kvm_s390_vsie { >>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c >>> index 68d7eef..efde264 100644 >>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c >>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c >>> @@ -2518,6 +2518,8 @@ struct kvm_vcpu *kvm_arch_vcpu_create(struct kvm *kvm, >>> vcpu->arch.sie_block->icpua = id; >>> spin_lock_init(&vcpu->arch.local_int.lock); >>> vcpu->arch.sie_block->gd = (u32)(u64)kvm->arch.gisa; >>> + if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->gd && sclp.has_gisaf) >>> + vcpu->arch.sie_block->gd |= GISA_FORMAT1; wonder if the would be nicer via if (kvm->arch.gisa) { vcpu->arch.sie_block->gd = (u32)(u64)kvm->arch.gisa; if (sclp.has_gisaf) cpu->arch.sie_block->gd |= GISA_FORMAT1; } >>> seqcount_init(&vcpu->arch.cputm_seqcount); >>> >>> rc = kvm_vcpu_init(vcpu, kvm, id); >>> >> >> So, what does this bring us? We don't seem to be using any new GISA-1 >> features. > > Preparation for device pass-through interrupt forwarding. > Can you add something like that to the patch description? Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> -- Thanks, David / dhildenb