Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v9 12/22] s390: vfio-ap: sysfs interfaces to configure control domains | From | Halil Pasic <> | Date | Mon, 27 Aug 2018 17:39:11 +0200 |
| |
On 08/27/2018 03:51 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 09:47:58 -0400 > Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > >> On 08/27/2018 04:33 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 10:16:59 -0400 >>> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 08/23/2018 06:25 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 15:16:19 -0400 >>>>> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> One of the things I suggested in a private conversation with Christian >>>>>> earlier >>>>>> today was to provide an additional rw sysfs attribute - a boolean - that >>>>>> indicates >>>>>> whether all usage domains should also be control domains. The default >>>>>> could be >>>>>> true. This would allow one to configure guests with usage-only domains >>>>>> as well >>>>>> as satisfy the convention. >>>>> Would this additional attribute then control "add usage domains to the >>>>> list of control domains automatically", or "don't allow to add a usage >>>>> domain if it has not already been added as a control domain"? >>>> It was just a proposal that wasn't really discussed at all, but this >>>> attribute would add usage domains to the list of control domains >>>> automatically if set to one. That would be the default behavior which >>>> would be turned off by manually setting it to zero. >>> If we want to do something like that, having it add the usage domains >>> automatically sounds like the more workable alternative. What I like >>> about this is that we make it explicit that we change the masks beyond >>> what the admin explicitly configured, and provide a knob to turn off >>> that behaviour. >> >> So, are you saying I should go ahead and implement this? > > I'm just saying that it does not sound like a bad idea :) > > If you agree that it's a good idea and if others also like it... I'd > certainly not mind you going ahead :) >
I can live with it. What I don't like about it is that it adds more context dependent semantics. The same sequence of actions results in a different result (depending on the mode of operation).
Regards, Halil
| |