| Message ID | 20191129142025.21453-1-frankja@linux.ibm.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | s390x: Increase architectural compliance | expand |
On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 09:20:22 -0500 Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > On a diag 308 subcode 0 and 1 we need to load the whole reset PSW and > not just the address. > > On a cpu reset normal, we need to clear local cpus. Unfortunately we > need a new API for that, since KVM only exposes one of the three > resets. > > Patches are also in my cleanup branch. > > Janosch Frank (3): > s390x: Properly fetch and test the short psw on diag308 subc 0/1 > Sync reset > s390x: protvirt: Add new VCPU reset functions > > linux-headers/linux/kvm.h | 7 +++++++ > target/s390x/cpu.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++---- > target/s390x/cpu.h | 1 + > target/s390x/kvm-stub.c | 10 +++++++++- > target/s390x/kvm.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > target/s390x/kvm_s390x.h | 4 +++- > 6 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > Ok, it seems I should just go ahead and pick patch 1, and defer the remainder until after we agree on the interface, right?
On 12/2/19 9:57 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 09:20:22 -0500 > Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > >> On a diag 308 subcode 0 and 1 we need to load the whole reset PSW and >> not just the address. >> >> On a cpu reset normal, we need to clear local cpus. Unfortunately we >> need a new API for that, since KVM only exposes one of the three >> resets. >> >> Patches are also in my cleanup branch. >> >> Janosch Frank (3): >> s390x: Properly fetch and test the short psw on diag308 subc 0/1 >> Sync reset >> s390x: protvirt: Add new VCPU reset functions >> >> linux-headers/linux/kvm.h | 7 +++++++ >> target/s390x/cpu.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++---- >> target/s390x/cpu.h | 1 + >> target/s390x/kvm-stub.c | 10 +++++++++- >> target/s390x/kvm.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >> target/s390x/kvm_s390x.h | 4 +++- >> 6 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >> > > Ok, it seems I should just go ahead and pick patch 1, and defer the > remainder until after we agree on the interface, right? > Yes. I'm currently reworking and testing the reset patch and there's one more patch that'll come into this series, as I found another problem.