linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 08/30] s390/pci: stash associated GISA designation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1aad9eaa-8a1f-2e56-2441-248ec3ceff2b@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jan 2022 10:12:02 -0500
From:   Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        schnelle@...ux.ibm.com
Cc:     alex.williamson@...hat.com, cohuck@...hat.com,
        farman@...ux.ibm.com, borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com, hca@...ux.ibm.com,
        gor@...ux.ibm.com, gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com,
        agordeev@...ux.ibm.com, frankja@...ux.ibm.com, david@...hat.com,
        imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com, vneethv@...ux.ibm.com,
        oberpar@...ux.ibm.com, freude@...ux.ibm.com, thuth@...hat.com,
        pasic@...ux.ibm.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/30] s390/pci: stash associated GISA designation

On 1/24/22 9:08 AM, Pierre Morel wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/14/22 21:31, Matthew Rosato wrote:
>> For passthrough devices, we will need to know the GISA designation of the
>> guest if interpretation facilities are to be used.  Setup to stash 
>> this in
>> the zdev and set a default of 0 (no GISA designation) for now; a 
>> subsequent
>> patch will set a valid GISA designation for passthrough devices.
>> Also, extend mpcific routines to specify this stashed designation as part
>> of the mpcific command.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Eric Farman <farman@...ux.ibm.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/s390/include/asm/pci.h     | 1 +
>>   arch/s390/include/asm/pci_clp.h | 3 ++-
>>   arch/s390/pci/pci.c             | 6 ++++++
>>   arch/s390/pci/pci_clp.c         | 1 +
>>   arch/s390/pci/pci_irq.c         | 5 +++++
>>   5 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/pci.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/pci.h
>> index 90824be5ce9a..2474b8d30f2a 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/pci.h
>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/pci.h
>> @@ -123,6 +123,7 @@ struct zpci_dev {
>>       enum zpci_state state;
>>       u32        fid;        /* function ID, used by sclp */
>>       u32        fh;        /* function handle, used by insn's */
>> +    u32        gd;        /* GISA designation for passthrough */
> 
> I already gave my R-B, and do not want to remove it, but wouldn't it be 
> possible to use more explicit names like gisa_designation instead of 
> just gd.
> It would not change anything to the functionality but would facilitate 
> the maintenance?
> 

Honestly, I don't have a strong opinion on this one -- AFAICT struct 
zpci_dev has a fair mix of short names (fh) and explicit names 
(max_bus_speed).

It does require changes to this patch and various subsequent patches -- 
The changes are, as you say, not functional, so I think it's not a big deal?

I do think 'gisa_designation' is too verbose though -- How about just 
'gisa', this is the same name used in the structure where we get this 
value from (gisa in struct sie_page2)

As long as nobody objects I will s/gd/gisa/ here and in struct 
clp_req_set_pci, retaining review tags.