On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 20:02:34 +0100
David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 02.03.21 18:32, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 02:49:37PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> @@ -899,13 +899,17 @@ int kvm_s390_mem_op_pv(S390CPU *cpu, uint64_t offset, void *hostbuf,
> >> * to grow. We also have to use MAP parameters that avoid
> >> * read-only mapping of guest pages.
> >> */
> >> -static void *legacy_s390_alloc(size_t size, uint64_t *align, bool shared)
> >> +static void *legacy_s390_alloc(size_t size, uint64_t *align, bool shared,
> >> + bool noreserve)
> >> {
> >> static void *mem;
> >>
> >> if (mem) {
> >> /* we only support one allocation, which is enough for initial ram */
> >> return NULL;
> >> + } else if (noreserve) {
> >> + error_report("Skipping reservation of swap space is not supported.");
> >> + return NULL
> >
> > Semicolon missing.
>
> Thanks for catching that!
Regardless of that (and this patch set), can we finally get rid of
legacy_s390_alloc? We already fence off running with a kernel prior to
3.15, and KVM_CAP_S390_COW depends on ESOP -- are non-ESOP kvm hosts
still relevant? This seems to be a generation 10 feature; do we
realistically expect anyone running this on e.g. a z/VM host that
doesn't provide ESOP?
