Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] virtio/s390: add indirection to indicators access

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 27 May 2019 13:57:06 +0200
Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 27 May 2019 13:00:28 +0200
> Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 23 May 2019 18:22:07 +0200
> > Michael Mueller <mimu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >   
> > > From: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > This will come in handy soon when we pull out the indicators from
> > > virtio_ccw_device to a memory area that is shared with the hypervisor
> > > (in particular for protected virtualization guests).
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> > >  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > >   
> >   
> > > @@ -338,17 +348,17 @@ static void virtio_ccw_drop_indicator(struct virtio_ccw_device *vcdev,
> > >  		ccw->cda = (__u32)(unsigned long) thinint_area;
> > >  	} else {
> > >  		/* payload is the address of the indicators */
> > > -		indicatorp = kmalloc(sizeof(&vcdev->indicators),
> > > +		indicatorp = kmalloc(sizeof(indicators(vcdev)),
> > >  				     GFP_DMA | GFP_KERNEL);
> > >  		if (!indicatorp)
> > >  			return;
> > >  		*indicatorp = 0;
> > >  		ccw->cmd_code = CCW_CMD_SET_IND;
> > > -		ccw->count = sizeof(&vcdev->indicators);
> > > +		ccw->count = sizeof(indicators(vcdev));
> > >  		ccw->cda = (__u32)(unsigned long) indicatorp;
> > >  	}
> > >  	/* Deregister indicators from host. */
> > > -	vcdev->indicators = 0;
> > > +	*indicators(vcdev) = 0;  
> > 
> > I'm not too hot about this notation, but it's not wrong and a minor
> > thing :)  
> 
> I don't have any better ideas :/
> 
> >   
> > >  	ccw->flags = 0;
> > >  	ret = ccw_io_helper(vcdev, ccw,
> > >  			    vcdev->is_thinint ?  
> > 
> > Patch looks reasonable and not dependent on the other patches here.
> >   
> 
> looks reasonable == r-b?
> 
> Not dependent in a sense that this patch could be made a first patch in
> the series. A subsequent patch depends on it.

What is the plan with these patches? I can either pick patch 5+6 and
let them go through the virtio tree, or give my r-b and let them go
through the s390 tree. The former is probably the quicker route, but
the latter has less potential for dependency issues.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization



[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux