[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180425104429.582618f8.cohuck@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:44:29 +0200
From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
To: Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: pasic@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, bjsdjshi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] vfio: ccw: Suppressing the BOXED state
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 16:48:12 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> VFIO_CCW_STATE_BOXED and VFIO_CCW_STATE_BUSY are the same
> states.
> Let's only keep one: VFIO_CCW_STATE_BUSY
>
> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_fsm.c | 9 ---------
> drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_private.h | 1 -
> 2 files changed, 10 deletions(-)
I think they were initially supposed to cover two different things:
- BUSY: we're currently dealing with an I/O request
- BOXED: the device currently won't talk to us or we won't talk to it
It seems we never really did anything useful with BOXED; but should we?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists