On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 10:10:12 -0400 Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 9/25/20 5:17 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 11:34:28 -0400 > > Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> From: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> To have a clean separation between s390-pci-bus.h and s390-pci-inst.h > >> headers we export the PCI CLP instructions in a dedicated header. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.h | 1 + > >> hw/s390x/s390-pci-clp.h | 211 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> hw/s390x/s390-pci-inst.h | 196 ------------------------------------------- > >> 3 files changed, 212 insertions(+), 196 deletions(-) > >> create mode 100644 hw/s390x/s390-pci-clp.h > > > > Looks sane; but I wonder whether we should move the stuff under > > include/hw/s390x/. > > > > Probably. I'd be fine with creating this file under include, but if > we're going to do that we should plan to move the other s390-pci* ones > too. For this patchset, I can change this patch to put the new header > in include/hw/s390x, easy enough. > > I'll plan to do a separate cleanup patchset to move s390-pci-bus.h and > s390-pci-inst.h. > > How would you like me to handle s390-pci-vfio.h (this is a new file > added by both this patch set and 's390x/pci: Accomodate vfio DMA > limiting') -- It seems likely that the latter patch set will merge > first, so my thought would be to avoid a cleanup on this one and just > re-send 's390x/pci: Accomodate vfio DMA limiting' once the kernel part > hits mainline (it's currently in linux-next via Alex) with > s390-pci-vfio.h also created in include/hw/s390x (and I guess the > MAINTAINERS hit for it too). Sound OK? Yes, I guess that would be best.
