On 07/09/2018 05:21 AM, Pierre Morel wrote:
On 03/07/2018 01:10, Halil Pasic wrote:
On 06/29/2018 11:11 PM, Tony Krowiak wrote:
This patch provides documentation describing the AP architecture and
design concepts behind the virtualization of AP devices. It also
includes an example of how to configure AP devices for exclusive
use of KVM guests.
Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I don't like the design of external interfaces except for:
* cpu model features, and
* reset handling.
In particular:
...snip...
4) If I were to act out the role of the administrator, I would prefer to think of
specifying or changing the access controls of a guest in respect to AP (that is
setting the AP matrix) as a single atomic operation -- which either succeeds or fails.
The operation should succeed for any valid configuration, and fail for any invalid
on.
The current piecemeal approach seems even less fitting if we consider changing the
access controls of a running guest. AFAIK changing access controls for a running
guest is possible, and I don't see a reason why should we artificially prohibit this.
I think the current sysfs interface for manipulating the matrix is good for
manual playing around, but I would prefer having an interface that is better
suited for programs (e.g. ioctl).
I disagree with using ioctl.
Why? What speaks against ioctl?
I agree that the current implementation is not right.
The configuration of APM and AQM should always be guarantied as coherent
within the host but it can be done doing the right checks when using the sysfs.
I'm glad we agree on this one at least.
Regards,
Halil
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
