On 07/09/2018 11:21 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.
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.
What sysfs interfaces do you suggest?
Regards,
Pierre
--
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
