From:   Nathan Lynch <nathanl@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] powerpc/pseries: read the lpar name from the firmware
In-Reply-To: <ac208963-d334-1f46-0db2-4a8d073b2963@linux.ibm.com>
References: <20211207171109.22793-1-ldufour@linux.ibm.com>
 <25527544-b0ac-596c-3876-560493b99f6b@linux.ibm.com>
 <8735m1ixd6.fsf@li-e15d104c-2135-11b2-a85c-d7ef17e56be6.ibm.com>
 <ac208963-d334-1f46-0db2-4a8d073b2963@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 05 Jan 2022 19:36:03 -0600
Message-ID: <87ee5lve64.fsf@li-e15d104c-2135-11b2-a85c-d7ef17e56be6.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@linux.ibm.com> writes:
> On 1/5/22 3:19 PM, Nathan Lynch wrote:
>> Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>>> On 07/12/2021, 18:11:09, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>>> The LPAR name may be changed after the LPAR has been started in the HMC.
>>>> In that case lparstat command is not reporting the updated value because it
>>>> reads it from the device tree which is read at boot time.
>>>>
>>>> However this value could be read from RTAS.
>>>>
>>>> Adding this value in the /proc/powerpc/lparcfg output allows to read the
>>>> updated value.
>>>
>>> Do you consider taking that patch soon?
>> 
>> This version prints an error on non-PowerVM guests the first time
>> lparcfg is read.
>
> I assume because QEMU doesn't implement the LPAR_NAME token for
> get_sysparm.

Correct.


>> And I still contend that having this function fall back to reporting the
>> partition name in the DT would provide a beneficial consistency in the
>> user-facing API, allowing programs to avoid hypervisor-specific branches
>> in their code. 
>
> Agreed, if the get_sysparm fails just report the lpar-name from the device tree.
>
>> I don't understand the resistance I've encountered here.
>> The fallback I'm suggesting (a root node property lookup) is certainly
>> not more complex than the RTAS call sequence you've already implemented.
>> 
>
> Is there benefit of adding a partition_name field/value pair to lparcfg? The
> lparstat utility can just as easily make the get_sysparm call via librtas.
> Further, rtas_filters allows this particular RTAS call from userspace.

The RTAS syscall is root-only, but we want the partition name (whether
supplied by RTAS or the device tree) to be available to unprivileged
programs.