On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 15:57:25 +0100 Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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... In order to reduce the mess, simply introduce them at the same time? I might be missing something, but is there anything speaking against it, as you can simply invoke the initial reset handler for clear reset for now? Also: KVM_CAP_S390_ENHANCED_VCPU_RESETS, maybe?
Attachment:
pgpLShTs8SDl9.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
