Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] s390x: kvm: Make kvm_sclp_service_call void

2019-11-29 Thread Cornelia Huck
On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 09:16:21 +0100 Janosch Frank wrote: > On 11/28/19 6:34 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 19:38:06 +0100 > > Janosch Frank wrote: > > > >> On 11/27/19 7:25 PM, Janosch Frank wrote: > >>> > >>> There's 0 (initiated), busy and operational and as far as I know

Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] s390x: kvm: Make kvm_sclp_service_call void

2019-11-29 Thread Janosch Frank
On 11/28/19 6:34 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 19:38:06 +0100 > Janosch Frank wrote: > >> On 11/27/19 7:25 PM, Janosch Frank wrote: >>> >>> There's 0 (initiated), busy and operational and as far as I know we >>> implement neither. >> >> That came out wrong... >> s/operational/n

Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] s390x: kvm: Make kvm_sclp_service_call void

2019-11-28 Thread Cornelia Huck
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 19:38:06 +0100 Janosch Frank wrote: > On 11/27/19 7:25 PM, Janosch Frank wrote: > > > > There's 0 (initiated), busy and operational and as far as I know we > > implement neither. > > That came out wrong... > s/operational/not operational/ > > We only implement "command in

Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] s390x: kvm: Make kvm_sclp_service_call void

2019-11-27 Thread Thomas Huth
On 27/11/2019 18.50, Janosch Frank wrote: It defaults to returning 0 anyway and that return value is not necessary, as 0 is also the default rc that the caller would return. While doing that we can simplify the logic a bit and return early if we inject a PGM exception. Also we always set a 0 cc,

Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] s390x: kvm: Make kvm_sclp_service_call void

2019-11-27 Thread Janosch Frank
On 11/27/19 7:25 PM, Janosch Frank wrote: > > There's 0 (initiated), busy and operational and as far as I know we > implement neither. That came out wrong... s/operational/not operational/ We only implement "command initiated" / cc = 0 We can never have busy, because we handle sclp calls synchro

Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] s390x: kvm: Make kvm_sclp_service_call void

2019-11-27 Thread David Hildenbrand
On 27.11.19 19:07, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 27.11.19 18:50, Janosch Frank wrote: >> It defaults to returning 0 anyway and that return value is not >> necessary, as 0 is also the default rc that the caller would return. >> >> While doing that we can simplify the logic a bit and return early if

Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] s390x: kvm: Make kvm_sclp_service_call void

2019-11-27 Thread Janosch Frank
On 11/27/19 7:07 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 27.11.19 18:50, Janosch Frank wrote: >> It defaults to returning 0 anyway and that return value is not >> necessary, as 0 is also the default rc that the caller would return. >> >> While doing that we can simplify the logic a bit and return early i

Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] s390x: kvm: Make kvm_sclp_service_call void

2019-11-27 Thread David Hildenbrand
On 27.11.19 18:50, Janosch Frank wrote: > It defaults to returning 0 anyway and that return value is not > necessary, as 0 is also the default rc that the caller would return. > > While doing that we can simplify the logic a bit and return early if > we inject a PGM exception. Also we always set a

[PATCH v4 6/6] s390x: kvm: Make kvm_sclp_service_call void

2019-11-27 Thread Janosch Frank
It defaults to returning 0 anyway and that return value is not necessary, as 0 is also the default rc that the caller would return. While doing that we can simplify the logic a bit and return early if we inject a PGM exception. Also we always set a 0 cc, so let's not base it on the rc of the sclp