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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 12/22] s390: vfio-ap: sysfs interfaces to configure
 control domains
To:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
        Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        pmorel@linux.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
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>
 <decfe307-4449-2c85-0b7e-6f2fcdb1164f@linux.ibm.com>
 <20180827103316.4e7fbc10.cohuck@redhat.com>
 <65cb82b5-85ce-1831-5b2a-719d2cf27be8@linux.ibm.com>
 <20180827155126.440f2170.cohuck@redhat.com>
From:   Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Aug 2018 17:39:11 +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: <20180827155126.440f2170.cohuck@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <5269782e-d0a9-9df0-b43f-eccfde00a223@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


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