On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 17:12:59 +0100
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 01/25/2018 04:47 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:43:27 +0100
> > Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> 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;
> >>>> 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.
> >>
> >
> > Should we start out with a dual format-0/format-1 gisa block, then?
> > IIUC, you'll switch to gisa-1 if the facility is there and gisa-1 can
> > do anything that gisa-0 can do?
>
> There might be systems that only have gisa-0, so I think having both makes
> sense.
>
Yes, that's what I meant. Just do it earlier in the series - this patch
feels like an afterthought with no real user.
