On 01/25/2018 05:16 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 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;
> }
Dont know. I leave it as is.
>
>>>> 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?
done.
>
> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
