Received: by 2002:ac0:a5a6:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m35-v6csp1809004imm; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:05:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdayOx0/P8vn0HE/rwjKOmMwqBVHw08jOQtp+A+OLHOfwc3dnctnoZFqgr88DZK96suQ+8dU X-Received: by 2002:a62:d2c4:: with SMTP id c187-v6mr7004885pfg.8.1535040314910; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:05:14 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1535040314; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=fsvlfI6m7CrIcuO4M/A/5VNvATQ2L86zApvbD+BWuyDljSUJTOfZMDsirR+UlNR3FL YQF3L+Q99ygsDJ7sAFtiWGRzJCCSq5o+sceBGuLZx3fXltkJcwqgbgYZt9XoHGdjoQmn 07Dp5yHNyG50fRzA8EyzFjZYlgq3k8kETpI9+wlYq7LNK0zs0BNQvncyNoBVLJNsgmIV 6iK/zLRjXC546BSAwT9FbwhhHJxSvVarghcq3NYAuCTERvHGEeN0ThD0fIZ+ID2iCRnv RyLCBn+q8j7tMdYvo2ug/U+10jEinmUP4oSxNf6tAClTxAVmagzQNd2kOYgCC8hb257U zJcA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:message-id:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date:from :references:cc:to:subject:reply-to:arc-authentication-results; bh=jjUeiBqs3RZqUS0I6oHrGn7DrfNR52UTDEDv+p7IclM=; b=vss34o6QtQvV7eLyQv5ItXkWDbJLzCEyCcCUt4TZFJQ1iNl6lakBhON1CbAfwuRq4C c5lSlvTk+h0OU7gsTgYh7uoyve8t8goCVKPr1v62u+ans+qWYZ7eTlkJHNg0h4c5rtgl f+8H1E3oi2eS6IS9TTE3zZ7TpnkakR2SZSBwP7BkLyrJxuoaZnWp4ghSIqLHjyAmPysU G7qUFwpB1UhecuQTKBVl499r8Ihi+HnJ047jWB6nIOoSo8hTqW1GL+zgqu+XQSVOWd8/ z8HqMYcGIs1PIwdI92LEaRK7OM1Ex12OEtDhpomxsCZW5OyImM96SUxbcPaKRNn252YU 2XRA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id s17-v6si4578071pgi.284.2018.08.23.09.04.59; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:05:14 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728415AbeHWOK1 (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 23 Aug 2018 10:10:27 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:58506 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727162AbeHWOK1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Aug 2018 10:10:27 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w7NAd4B5073965 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 06:41:20 -0400 Received: from e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.103]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2m1suf45w2-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 06:41:20 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 11:41:18 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.197) by e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.137) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Thu, 23 Aug 2018 11:41:14 +0100 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id w7NAfCmu41091074 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 23 Aug 2018 10:41:12 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id F39EA4C04E; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 13:41:13 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28E404C046; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 13:41:13 +0100 (BST) Received: from [9.152.224.92] (unknown [9.152.224.92]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 13:41:13 +0100 (BST) Reply-To: pmorel@linux.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 12/22] s390: vfio-ap: sysfs interfaces to configure control domains To: Halil Pasic , Tony Krowiak , Christian Borntraeger , Cornelia Huck Cc: Tony Krowiak , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, freude@de.ibm.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, kwankhede@nvidia.com, bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com, pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com, alifm@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mjrosato@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jjherne@linux.vnet.ibm.com, thuth@redhat.com, pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com, berrange@redhat.com, fiuczy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, buendgen@de.ibm.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com References: <1534196899-16987-1-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1534196899-16987-13-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180820162317.08bd7d23.cohuck@redhat.com> <660de00a-c403-28c1-4df4-82a973ab3ad5@linux.ibm.com> <20180821172548.57a6c758.cohuck@redhat.com> <82a391ee-85b1-cdc7-0f9b-d37fd8ba8e47@linux.ibm.com> <20180822114250.59a250aa.cohuck@redhat.com> <8bc5f207-f913-825c-f9fc-0a2c7fd280aa@linux.ibm.com> <219b352b-d5a2-189c-e205-82e7f9ae3d64@de.ibm.com> <9ef5fcb9-02e0-88e3-007c-eedb14e6db80@linux.ibm.com> From: Pierre Morel Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:41:11 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18082310-0028-0000-0000-000002EEA602 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18082310-0029-0000-0000-000023A7EBDC Message-Id: <56ce7a29-c7ce-1bad-c26b-945b2d8dae4b@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-08-23_05:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=435 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1807170000 definitions=main-1808230114 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 23/08/2018 11:26, Halil Pasic wrote: > > > On 08/22/2018 09:16 PM, Tony Krowiak wrote: >> On 08/22/2018 01:11 PM, Halil Pasic wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 08/22/2018 05:48 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>>> On 08/22/2018 05:34 PM, Pierre Morel wrote: >>>>> On 22/08/2018 17:11, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 08/22/2018 01:03 PM, Pierre Morel wrote: >>>>>>>> That's interesting. >>>>>>>> ... >>>> >>>> So you have changed the code to not automatically make a usage domain a >>>> control domain in the bitfield (and you could still use it as a usage >>>> domain). Correct? Yes. >>> >>> I tested basically the same yesterday, with the same results. >>> >>>> I think this is probably expected. the "usage implies control" seems to >>>> be a convention implemented by HMC (lpar) and z/VM but millicode offers >>>> the bits to have usage-only domains. As LPAR and z/VM will always >>>> enable >>>> any usage-domain to also be a control domain we should do the same. I think it is the reasonable thing to do. >>> >>> I'm fine either way, but slightly prefer higher level management >>> software >>> and not the kernel accommodating this convention. Please, we do not need this in a first version just make it easy stick with what HMC does. >>> with read access to, let's say a regular file. For me, all options >>> (rw, r, and w) >>> do make sense, and if I had to pick the one that makes the least >>> sense I would >>> pick write only. The convention is in these terms making read-only >>> illegal. But >>> should 'usage only domains' ever get identified as something somebody >>> wants to do >>> we can just add an attribute for that. So I'm fine either way. We do not need to introduce new features now. regards, Pierre -- Pierre Morel Linux/KVM/QEMU in Böblingen - Germany