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;
Date:   Thu, 23 Aug 2018 13:31:34 +0200
From:   Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
To:     Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>,
        Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 12/22] s390: vfio-ap: sysfs interfaces to configure
 control domains
Message-ID: <20180823133134.32e1d2f8.cohuck@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <25a44526-a2d6-c632-6a6d-8ca385925731@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>
        <a43ef10f-aa91-cb4c-a8aa-cd3ce9cfebf2@linux.ibm.com>
        <20180822114250.59a250aa.cohuck@redhat.com>
        <8bc5f207-f913-825c-f9fc-0a2c7fd280aa@linux.ibm.com>
        <e36abc22-9daf-e0f4-c6b3-7adbb28db4c3@de.ibm.com>
        <f84dbcc0-f627-be02-9933-3baa953adc09@linux.ibm.com>
        <219b352b-d5a2-189c-e205-82e7f9ae3d64@de.ibm.com>
        <dbb74c9c-93ab-ed05-fad4-ea2aa5f2b71e@linux.ibm.com>
        <9ef5fcb9-02e0-88e3-007c-eedb14e6db80@linux.ibm.com>
        <20180823122525.02fc4af3.cohuck@redhat.com>
        <25a44526-a2d6-c632-6a6d-8ca385925731@linux.ibm.com>
Organization: Red Hat GmbH
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:43:42 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 23/08/2018 12:25, 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"?
> > 
> > One thing I'm still unsure about is how libvirt comes into the picture
> > here. Will it consume the setting, or actively manipulate it?
> > 
> > [In general, I'm not very clear about how libvirt will interact with the
> > whole infrastructure...]
> >   
> 
> When I read you it convince me that it is not wise to change anything
> that has been already discuss and could impact the Libvirt.

My main point basically was that we should get feedback from a libvirt
POV :) The new attribute may make sense, or not; but I'm really feeling
a bit in the dark with regard to libvirt.