On 12/16/2013 06:18 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 16.12.2013, at 22:42, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 16.12.2013, at 21:51, Matthew Rosato <mjros...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>
> [...]
>
>>
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> + sccb->h.response_code = cpu_to_be16(SCLP_RC_NORMAL_COMPLETION);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static void sclp_execute(SCCB *sccb, uint64_t code)
>>> {
>>> S390SCLPDevice *sdev = get_event_facility();
>>> @@ -50,6 +255,22 @@ static void sclp_execute(SCCB *sccb, uint64_t code)
>>> case SCLP_CMDW_READ_SCP_INFO_FORCED:
>>> read_SCP_info(sccb);
>>> break;
>>> + case SCLP_READ_STORAGE_ELEMENT_INFO:
>>> + if (code & 0xff00) {
>>> + read_storage_element1_info(sccb);
>>> + } else {
>>> + read_storage_element0_info(sccb);
>>> + }
>>> + break;
>>> + case SCLP_ATTACH_STORAGE_ELEMENT:
>>> + attach_storage_element(sccb, (code & 0xff00) >> 8);
>>> + break;
>>> + case SCLP_ASSIGN_STORAGE:
>>> + assign_storage(sccb);
>>> + break;
>>> + case SCLP_UNASSIGN_STORAGE:
>>> + unassign_storage(sccb);
>>> + break;
>>
>> Do you think it'd be possible to model this whole thing as a device that has
>> its own state? That's where you could keep the bitmap for example. You'd
>> only need some callback mechanism to hook into the SCLP calls, but the PPC
>> guys already have something similar with their hypercalls.
>
> Speaking of state - in the current model the "is standby storage active"
> bitmap doesn't get migrated, no?
>
Yes, you are correct, migration support still needs to be added - But I
wanted to get this much out for review at least.
>
> Alex
>
>
>
