[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7fe05c94-06ae-4e40-8894-95ad0b21a4a9@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2023 11:25:57 -0400
From: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, jjherne@...ux.ibm.com,
borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com, frankja@...ux.ibm.com,
imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com, david@...hat.com, mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] s390/vfio-ap: set status response code to 06 on
gisc registration failure
On 10/27/23 07:19, Halil Pasic wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:32:44 -0400
> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> Since this scenario is very unlikely to happen and there is no status
>> response code to indicate an invalid ISC value, let's set the
>
> Again invalid ISC won't happen except for hypervisor messes up.
Again, that is one of the checks performed by the kvm_s390_gisc_register
function; however, I get your point and will remove reference in the
comment.
>
>> response code to 06 indicating 'Invalid address of AP-queue notification
>> byte'. While this is not entirely accurate, it is better than indicating
>> that the ZONE/GISA designation is invalid which is something the guest
>> can do nothing about since those values are set by the hypervisor.
>
> And more importantly AP_RESPONSE_INVALID_GISA is not valid for G2 in
> the given scenario, since G2 is not trying to set up interrupts on behalf
> of the G3 with a G3 GISA, but G2 is trying to set up interrupts for
> itself. And then AP_RESPONSE_INVALID_GISA is architecturally simply not
> a valid RC!
Got it.
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Anthony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
>> Suggested-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
>
> Except for the explanation in the commit message, the patch is good. It
> is up to you if you want to fix the commit message or not.
>
I'll fix the commit message.
> Reviewed-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists