search for: ccw_cmd_write_status

...+ /* Protected Virtualisation guest needs IOMMU */ + if (is_prot_virt_guest() && + !__virtio_test_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) + status &= ~VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_FEATURES_OK; + /* Write the status to the host. */ vcdev->dma_area->status = status; ccw->cmd_code = CCW_CMD_WRITE_STATUS; -- 2.25.1

...+ /* Protected Virtualisation guest needs IOMMU */ + if (is_prot_virt_guest() && + !__virtio_test_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) + status &= ~VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_FEATURES_OK; + /* Write the status to the host. */ vcdev->dma_area->status = status; ccw->cmd_code = CCW_CMD_WRITE_STATUS; -- 2.25.1

...() && >> +??????? !__virtio_test_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) >> +??????????? status &= ~VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_FEATURES_OK; >> + >> ????? /* Write the status to the host. */ >> ????? vcdev->dma_area->status = status; >> ????? ccw->cmd_code = CCW_CMD_WRITE_STATUS; > > > I wonder whether we need move it to virtio core instead of ccw. > > I think the other memory protection technologies may suffer from this as > well. > > Thanks > What would you think of the following, also taking into account Connie's comment on where...

...() && >> +??????? !__virtio_test_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) >> +??????????? status &= ~VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_FEATURES_OK; >> + >> ????? /* Write the status to the host. */ >> ????? vcdev->dma_area->status = status; >> ????? ccw->cmd_code = CCW_CMD_WRITE_STATUS; > > > I wonder whether we need move it to virtio core instead of ccw. > > I think the other memory protection technologies may suffer from this as > well. > > Thanks > What would you think of the following, also taking into account Connie's comment on where...

...o_test_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) >>>> +??????????? status &= ~VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_FEATURES_OK; >>>> + >>>> ????? /* Write the status to the host. */ >>>> ????? vcdev->dma_area->status = status; >>>> ????? ccw->cmd_code = CCW_CMD_WRITE_STATUS; >>> >>> >>> I wonder whether we need move it to virtio core instead of ccw. >>> >>> I think the other memory protection technologies may suffer from >>> this as well. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >> >> >> Wha...

...o_test_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) >>>> +??????????? status &= ~VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_FEATURES_OK; >>>> + >>>> ????? /* Write the status to the host. */ >>>> ????? vcdev->dma_area->status = status; >>>> ????? ccw->cmd_code = CCW_CMD_WRITE_STATUS; >>> >>> >>> I wonder whether we need move it to virtio core instead of ccw. >>> >>> I think the other memory protection technologies may suffer from >>> this as well. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >> >> >> Wha...

This patch (on top of "virtio/s390: handle failures of READ_VQ_CONF ccw") implements the guest side of the new status ccw. Pierre Morel (1): virtio/s390: support READ_STATUS command for virtio-ccw drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+) -- 2.3.8

...{ + address_space_stb(&address_space_memory, ccw.cda, vdev->status, + MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED, NULL); + sch->curr_status.scsw.count = ccw.count - sizeof(vdev->status); + ret = 0; + } + break; case CCW_CMD_WRITE_STATUS: if (check_len) { if (ccw.count != sizeof(status)) { diff --git a/hw/s390x/virtio-ccw.h b/hw/s390x/virtio-ccw.h index 66c831b..6bc14ee 100644 --- a/hw/s390x/virtio-ccw.h +++ b/hw/s390x/virtio-ccw.h @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ #define CCW_CMD_SET_IND 0x43 #define CCW_CMD_SET_CONF_...

...--git a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c index 8688ad4..d3a98d3 100644 --- a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c +++ b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c @@ -145,6 +145,7 @@ static struct airq_info *airq_areas[MAX_AIRQ_AREAS]; #define CCW_CMD_WRITE_CONF 0x21 #define CCW_CMD_WRITE_STATUS 0x31 #define CCW_CMD_READ_VQ_CONF 0x32 +#define CCW_CMD_READ_STATUS 0x72 #define CCW_CMD_SET_IND_ADAPTER 0x73 #define CCW_CMD_SET_VIRTIO_REV 0x83 @@ -160,6 +161,7 @@ static struct airq_info *airq_areas[MAX_AIRQ_AREAS]; #define VIRTIO_CCW_DOING_SET_CONF_IND 0x04000000 #define VIRTIO_CCW_DOING...

This patch implements the new status accessor in the ccw device, as laid out in "[PATCH v2 1/1] ccw: add CCW_CMD_READ_STATUS". Changes from the RFC (back in September): - rebased Pierre Morel (1): virtio/s390: support READ_STATUS command for virtio-ccw drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+) -- 2.6.6

...rivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c index 639ed4e6afd1..01e3dcfd7c64 100644 --- a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c +++ b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c @@ -145,6 +145,7 @@ static struct airq_info *airq_areas[MAX_AIRQ_AREAS]; #define CCW_CMD_WRITE_CONF 0x21 #define CCW_CMD_WRITE_STATUS 0x31 #define CCW_CMD_READ_VQ_CONF 0x32 +#define CCW_CMD_READ_STATUS 0x72 #define CCW_CMD_SET_IND_ADAPTER 0x73 #define CCW_CMD_SET_VIRTIO_REV 0x83 @@ -160,6 +161,7 @@ static struct airq_info *airq_areas[MAX_AIRQ_AREAS]; #define VIRTIO_CCW_DOING_SET_CONF_IND 0x04000000 #define VIRTIO_CCW_DOING...

...LATFORM)) > + status &= ~VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_FEATURES_OK; > + set_status seems like an odd place to look at features; shouldn't that rather be done in finalize_features? > /* Write the status to the host. */ > vcdev->dma_area->status = status; > ccw->cmd_code = CCW_CMD_WRITE_STATUS;

...needs IOMMU */ > + if (is_prot_virt_guest() && > + !__virtio_test_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) > + status &= ~VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_FEATURES_OK; > + > /* Write the status to the host. */ > vcdev->dma_area->status = status; > ccw->cmd_code = CCW_CMD_WRITE_STATUS; I wonder whether we need move it to virtio core instead of ccw. I think the other memory protection technologies may suffer from this as well. Thanks

This patch (on top of "virtio/s390: handle failures of READ_VQ_CONF ccw") implements the guest side of the new status ccw. Pierre Morel (1): virtio/s390: support READ_STATUS command for virtio-ccw drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+) -- 2.3.8

This patch implements the new status accessor in the ccw device, as laid out in "[PATCH v2 1/1] ccw: add CCW_CMD_READ_STATUS". Changes from the RFC (back in September): - rebased Pierre Morel (1): virtio/s390: support READ_STATUS command for virtio-ccw drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+) -- 2.6.6

These patches implement the new read status command in qemu and bump the revision to 2 (as this ccw is currently the only thing new with that revision). Patches are on top of v2 of "virtio-1/virtio-ccw related patches". Pierre Morel (2): s390x/virtio-ccw: respond to READ_STATUS command s390x/virtio-ccw: set revision 2 as maximum revision number hw/s390x/virtio-ccw.c | 20

These patches implement the new read status command in qemu and bump the revision to 2 (as this ccw is currently the only thing new with that revision). Patches are on top of v2 of "virtio-1/virtio-ccw related patches". Pierre Morel (2): s390x/virtio-ccw: respond to READ_STATUS command s390x/virtio-ccw: set revision 2 as maximum revision number hw/s390x/virtio-ccw.c | 20

...t; +??????? !__virtio_test_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) >>> +??????????? status &= ~VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_FEATURES_OK; >>> + >>> ????? /* Write the status to the host. */ >>> ????? vcdev->dma_area->status = status; >>> ????? ccw->cmd_code = CCW_CMD_WRITE_STATUS; >> >> >> I wonder whether we need move it to virtio core instead of ccw. >> >> I think the other memory protection technologies may suffer from this >> as well. >> >> Thanks >> > > > What would you think of the following, also takin...

These patches implement the new read status command in qemu and bump the revision to 2 (as this ccw is currently the only thing new with that revision); see "[PATCH v2 1/1] ccw: add CCW_CMD_READ_STATUS" for details. Note that we'll need to add some compat machine handling when this is added (not done here, as the machine level is not clear yet). Changes from the RFC (back in

These patches implement the new read status command in qemu and bump the revision to 2 (as this ccw is currently the only thing new with that revision); see "[PATCH v2 1/1] ccw: add CCW_CMD_READ_STATUS" for details. Note that we'll need to add some compat machine handling when this is added (not done here, as the machine level is not clear yet). Changes from the RFC (back in