Linux Virtualization - May 2019 - [PATCH v2 6/8] virtio/s390: add indirection to indicators access

On Thu, 23 May 2019 18:22:07 +0200
Michael Mueller <mimu at linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> From: Halil Pasic <pasic at linux.ibm.com>
> 
> 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 at linux.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  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 :)
>  	ccw->flags = 0;
>  	ret = ccw_io_helper(vcdev, ccw,
>  			    vcdev->is_thinint ?
Patch looks reasonable and not dependent on the other patches here.

On Mon, 27 May 2019 13:00:28 +0200
Cornelia Huck <cohuck at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2019 18:22:07 +0200
> Michael Mueller <mimu at linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Halil Pasic <pasic at linux.ibm.com>
> > 
> > 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 at linux.ibm.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >  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.

Regards,
Halil

On Mon, 27 May 2019 13:57:06 +0200
Halil Pasic <pasic at linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2019 13:00:28 +0200
> Cornelia Huck <cohuck at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 23 May 2019 18:22:07 +0200
> > Michael Mueller <mimu at linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > From: Halil Pasic <pasic at linux.ibm.com>
> > > 
> > > 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 at linux.ibm.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > >  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.