[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4d94124e-00f6-aa65-3a4a-bd8910480329@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 13:43:06 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] KVM selftests for s390x
On 20/05/19 13:30, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> No objections at all, though it would be like to have ucall plumbed in
>> from the beginning.
> I'm still looking at the ucall interface ... what I don't quite get yet
> is the question why the ucall_type there is selectable during runtime?
>
> Are there plans to have test that could either use UCALL_PIO or
> UCALL_MMIO? If not, what about moving ucall_init() and ucall() to
> architecture specific code in tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/
> and tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64 instead, and to remove the
> ucall_type stuff again (so that x86 is hard-wired to PIO and aarch64
> is hard-wired to MMIO)? ... then I could add a DIAG-based ucall
> on s390x more easily, I think.
Yes, that would work. I think Andrew wanted the flexibility to use MMIO
on x86, but it's not really necessary to have it.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists