lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v9 12/22] s390: vfio-ap: sysfs interfaces to configure control domains
From
Date


On 08/27/2018 03:51 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 09:47:58 -0400
> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08/27/2018 04:33 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 10:16:59 -0400
>>> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 08/23/2018 06:25 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 15:16:19 -0400
>>>>> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the things I suggested in a private conversation with Christian
>>>>>> earlier
>>>>>> today was to provide an additional rw sysfs attribute - a boolean - that
>>>>>> indicates
>>>>>> whether all usage domains should also be control domains. The default
>>>>>> could be
>>>>>> true. This would allow one to configure guests with usage-only domains
>>>>>> as well
>>>>>> as satisfy the convention.
>>>>> Would this additional attribute then control "add usage domains to the
>>>>> list of control domains automatically", or "don't allow to add a usage
>>>>> domain if it has not already been added as a control domain"?
>>>> It was just a proposal that wasn't really discussed at all, but this
>>>> attribute would add usage domains to the list of control domains
>>>> automatically if set to one. That would be the default behavior which
>>>> would be turned off by manually setting it to zero.
>>> If we want to do something like that, having it add the usage domains
>>> automatically sounds like the more workable alternative. What I like
>>> about this is that we make it explicit that we change the masks beyond
>>> what the admin explicitly configured, and provide a knob to turn off
>>> that behaviour.
>>
>> So, are you saying I should go ahead and implement this?
>
> I'm just saying that it does not sound like a bad idea :)
>
> If you agree that it's a good idea and if others also like it... I'd
> certainly not mind you going ahead :)
>

I can live with it. What I don't like about it is that it adds
more context dependent semantics. The same sequence of actions
results in a different result (depending on the mode of operation).

Regards,
Halil

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-27 17:40    [W:0.090 / U:5.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site