Re: [PATCH 1/2] S390: take a full byte as ext_param indicator

2010-08-24 Thread Christian Borntraeger
Am 24.08.2010 14:22, schrieb Avi Kivity: > First of all we need a virtio/s390 specification, like we have a > virtio/pci spec. Here is something that I started a year ago but never finished. Christian guest/host interface for s390/virtio devices KVM_DEVICE_DESCRIPTOR PAGE

Re: [PATCH 1/2] S390: take a full byte as ext_param indicator

2010-08-24 Thread Avi Kivity
On 08/24/2010 03:32 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: Perhaps we should freeze virtio/s390 development until someone feels sufficiently motivated. Sure, go ahead. I don't think that'll help anyone but if it makes you feel good... I don't maintain virtio or the virtio-s390 interface, so I can't free

Re: [PATCH 1/2] S390: take a full byte as ext_param indicator

2010-08-24 Thread Alexander Graf
Avi Kivity wrote: > On 08/24/2010 03:25 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> Avi Kivity wrote: >>> On 08/24/2010 03:14 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: I have no strong opinion on that, but I think its more a matter of where to put an interface description. A header file seems just the ri

Re: [PATCH 1/2] S390: take a full byte as ext_param indicator

2010-08-24 Thread Avi Kivity
On 08/24/2010 03:25 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: Avi Kivity wrote: On 08/24/2010 03:14 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: I have no strong opinion on that, but I think its more a matter of where to put an interface description. A header file seems just the right place. I will let you (or Rusty) d

Re: [PATCH 1/2] S390: take a full byte as ext_param indicator

2010-08-24 Thread Alexander Graf
Avi Kivity wrote: > On 08/24/2010 03:14 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >> >> I have no strong opinion on that, but I think its more a matter of where >> to put an interface description. A header file seems just the right >> place. >> I will let you (or Rusty) decide. > > First of all we need a v

Re: [PATCH 1/2] S390: take a full byte as ext_param indicator

2010-08-24 Thread Avi Kivity
On 08/24/2010 03:14 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: I have no strong opinion on that, but I think its more a matter of where to put an interface description. A header file seems just the right place. I will let you (or Rusty) decide. First of all we need a virtio/s390 specification, like we

Re: [PATCH 1/2] S390: take a full byte as ext_param indicator

2010-08-24 Thread Christian Borntraeger
Am 24.08.2010 14:06, schrieb Alexander Graf: >>> #define VIRTIO_SUBCODE_64 0x0D00 >>> +#define VIRTIO_PARAM_MASK 0xff >>> +#define VIRTIO_PARAM_VRING_INTERRUPT 0x0 >>> +#define VIRTIO_PARAM_CONFIG_CHANGED0x1 >>> >> >> Maybe this should be exported in a header, something

Re: [PATCH 1/2] S390: take a full byte as ext_param indicator

2010-08-24 Thread Alexander Graf
Christian Borntraeger wrote: > Am 23.08.2010 23:31, schrieb Alexander Graf: > >> Currenty the ext_param field only distinguishes between "config change" and >> "vring interrupt". We can do a lot more with it though, so let's enable a >> full byte of possible values and constants to #defines whil

Re: [PATCH 1/2] S390: take a full byte as ext_param indicator

2010-08-24 Thread Christian Borntraeger
Am 23.08.2010 23:31, schrieb Alexander Graf: > Currenty the ext_param field only distinguishes between "config change" and > "vring interrupt". We can do a lot more with it though, so let's enable a > full byte of possible values and constants to #defines while at it. Makes a lot of sense. [...]

[PATCH 1/2] S390: take a full byte as ext_param indicator

2010-08-23 Thread Alexander Graf
Currenty the ext_param field only distinguishes between "config change" and "vring interrupt". We can do a lot more with it though, so let's enable a full byte of possible values and constants to #defines while at it. Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf --- drivers/s390/kvm/kvm_virtio.c | 22 +++