* Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> [2017-07-31 10:54:47 +0200]: > On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 23:50:48 +0800 > Dong Jia Shi <bjsdj...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > * Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> [2017-07-28 13:53:01 +0200]: > > > > > > You're bound to get different kinds of notifications: via a CRW with > > > > > source channel path, via event information retrievable via CHSC > > > > > (indicated by a CRW with source CSS), > > > > Ha, I was not awre of this one before! > > > > > > That's the 'link incident' and 'resource accessibility' stuff. > > My focus was trying to have the minimum stuff to make a Linux guest > > working well -- basically, my working on prototype targeted to make the > > output lschp and lscss corect and uptodate. I > > > > I will dig this and see if I need to do more stuff. > > You can probably skip this for now, unless you want to propagate the > ficon-related stuff. I don't even want to know about that now. ;)
> Just plain channel-path related changes should already cover the > interesting stuff. > > > > > My prototype work tries to sync the belowing information from host > > > > kernel to qemu: > > > > 1. the real SCHIB, so stsch from guest could get the updated path > > > > masks. > > > > > > How far do you want to go with mirroring? I think you need to modify at > > > least the devno in the pmcw, no? > > I didn't think this very deep. For now, I only sync the PIM, POM, PAM > > and CHPIDs lazily. > > Also consider the pno bit and the pnom. Roger! > > > For devno... I need to think more. If the qemu command has a given > > "devno" for the vfio-ccw device, maybe we should not override its dev_id > > with the real one "device number". > > The guest should not be surprised by a different devno, so you need to > be sure everything is consistent. Ok. Will handle the device number. > > > > > > 3. still working on support CHSC store channel path description > > > > command. > > > > > > I'm currently wondering how many of those chscs are optional. OTOH, if > > > a modern Linux guest cannot work properly without them, it makes no > > > sense to leave them out. > > Nod. > > > > But I think I need to define the criteria for "work properly". For > > example, with the current code, a Linux guest with a passed through > > device works, while lschp shows the Cfg. as 3 (not recognized), and the > > Shared and PCHID as "-". For this case, do you think it "work properly"? > > It depends upon what you want to expose to the guest. Some > configuration checking or management tools might be reporting a > configuration deficiency (*might*, I do not know). This is helpful. > > Shared and PGID may be useful if the operator wants to perform some > maintenance on the hardware (so they can figure out which systems/disks > are affected), but the information should be available in the > hypervisor as well, so I'm not sure whether it's a big deal. > Oh! This information is also very helpful. Since I only want to expose the minimum information that the guest needs to work without serious problem. I think I can also deffer these stuff until we have the good chp modelling. -- Dong Jia Shi
