On 06/04/2023 10.22, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 6/4/23 10:04, Janosch Frank wrote:
On 4/6/23 09:50, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 05/04/2023 18.04, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
Protected Virtualization is specific to KVM.
Rename the file as 'pv-kvm.c' to make this clearer.
Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
hw/s390x/{pv.c => pv-kvm.c} | 0
hw/s390x/meson.build | 2 +-
2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
rename hw/s390x/{pv.c => pv-kvm.c} (100%)
diff --git a/hw/s390x/pv.c b/hw/s390x/pv-kvm.c
similarity index 100%
rename from hw/s390x/pv.c
rename to hw/s390x/pv-kvm.c
diff --git a/hw/s390x/meson.build b/hw/s390x/meson.build
index f291016fee..2f43b6c473 100644
--- a/hw/s390x/meson.build
+++ b/hw/s390x/meson.build
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_KVM', if_true: files(
'tod-kvm.c',
's390-skeys-kvm.c',
's390-stattrib-kvm.c',
- 'pv.c',
+ 'pv-kvm.c',
's390-pci-kvm.c',
))
s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_TCG', if_true: files(
Hmmm, maybe we should rather move it to target/s390x/kvm/ instead?
Janosch, what's your opinion?
Thomas
Don't care as long as the file is not deleted :)
I followed the current pattern:
$ ls -1 hw/s390x/*kvm*
hw/s390x/s390-pci-kvm.c
hw/s390x/s390-skeys-kvm.c
hw/s390x/s390-stattrib-kvm.c
hw/s390x/tod-kvm.c
There's a differences for those: First, these devices have an implementation
that works with TCG, too. Second, protected virtualization (pv) is not a
real hardware device, it's a feature of the firmware on s390x that is
exposed to userspace via the KVM interface. So target/s390x/kvm/ slightly
sounds like a better place to me ... no strong opinion, though.
Thomas
