On 01/04/2012 06:34 PM, Carsten Otte wrote: > Avi wrote: >> There is an alternative, if you can recognize this condition exactly >> from the hardware fault, you can fault the lowcore yourself and retry. >> This eliminates a user interface. Is this workable? > I've read your comment again, and understood it this time. Trouble is > that the kernel cannot handle the situation either: userspace may need > to malloc some memory and call KVM_S390_UCAS_MAP prior to resolving it. > One could avoid the user interface by partially handling it in-kernel > and partially handling it in userspace without handshaking: > - user calls KVM_RUN > - SIE validity intercept > - kernel tries to gmap_fault and recognizes -EFAULT > - kernel returns validity intercept to user > - user does KVM_S390_UCAS_MAP > - user calls KVM_RUN > - SIE validity intercept > - kernel tries to gmap_fault and succeeds > - SIE runs ok > > I guess I prefer to do processing of one operation in one place, and > thus I prefer the user interface over this. But yes, it'd be workable > without this interface. Is this what you want? No, I think your patch as is would be better. Thanks. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
