On 11/29/19 3:48 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 29.11.19 15:39, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >> >> >> On 29.11.19 15:38, Janosch Frank wrote: >> [...] >>>>>> As we now have two interfaces to achieve the same thing (initial reset), >>>>>> I do wonder if we should simply introduce >>>>>> >>>>>> KVM_S390_NORMAL_RESET >>>>>> KVM_S390_CLEAR_RESET >>>>>> >>>>>> instead ... >>>>>> >>>>>> Then you can do KVM_S390_NORMAL_RESET for the bugfix and >>>>>> KVM_S390_CLEAR_RESET later for PV. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does anything speak against that? >>>>> >>>>> Apart from loosing one more ioctl number probably not >>>> >>>> Do we care? (I think not, but maybe I am missing something :) ) >>>> >>> >>> I don't, maybe somebody else does >>> Btw. I'm struggling to find a good name for the capability: >>> KVM_CAP_S390_VCPU_ADDITIONAL_RESETS ? >> >> KVM_CAP_S390_VCPU_RESETS ? > > Either that or two separate ones if you're not going to introduce them > at the same time ... > This is starting to get messy...
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
