On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 13:44:12 -0500 "Jason J. Herne" <jjhe...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 1/7/19 2:02 PM, Jason J. Herne wrote: > >>> @@ -190,6 +247,9 @@ struct ciw { > >>> __u16 count; > >>> }; > >>> +#define CU_TYPE_VIRTIO 0x3832 > >>> +#define CU_TYPE_DASD 0x3990 > >> > >> No other dasd types we want to support? :) (Not sure if others are out > >> in the wild. Maybe FBA?) > >> > > > > I have no idea. I assumed 3390 was the only thing we supported. Perhaps > > 3380? I'd need to > > find a test device, which I could probably do ... I'll look more into this. > > > > After a few discussions with folks in the lab we've decided that we don't see > a ton of > value in supporting anything other than 3990 at the moment. Anything else > would be older > (3380) and/or rare to see in the wild (and very difficult to test). As for > emulated setups > like z/VM, a user can just use 3390 instead of FBA. So I recommend we move > forward with > 3390/3990 support for now. We can always add in others types if/when we need > them. Sounds reasonable. What about calling the #define above CU_TYPE_DASD_3990 instead? Just to make clear that there are other dasd types out there, but we only support that particular one (at least at the moment).