[PULL,0/7] vfio-ccw: fixes
mbox

Message ID 20190603105038.11788-1-cohuck@redhat.com
State New
Headers show

Pull-request

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvms390/vfio-ccw.git tags/vfio-ccw-20190603

Message

Cornelia Huck June 3, 2019, 10:50 a.m. UTC
The following changes since commit 674459be116955e025d6a5e6142e2d500103de8e:

  MAINTAINERS: add Vasily Gorbik and Christian Borntraeger for s390 (2019-05-31 10:14:15 +0200)

are available in the Git repository at:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvms390/vfio-ccw.git tags/vfio-ccw-20190603

for you to fetch changes up to 9b6e57e5a51696171de990b3c41bd53d4b8ab8ac:

  s390/cio: Remove vfio-ccw checks of command codes (2019-06-03 12:02:55 +0200)

----------------------------------------------------------------
various vfio-ccw fixes (ccw translation, state machine)

----------------------------------------------------------------

Eric Farman (7):
  s390/cio: Update SCSW if it points to the end of the chain
  s390/cio: Set vfio-ccw FSM state before ioeventfd
  s390/cio: Split pfn_array_alloc_pin into pieces
  s390/cio: Initialize the host addresses in pfn_array
  s390/cio: Don't pin vfio pages for empty transfers
  s390/cio: Allow zero-length CCWs in vfio-ccw
  s390/cio: Remove vfio-ccw checks of command codes

 drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_cp.c  | 159 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------
 drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c |   6 +-
 2 files changed, 119 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)

Comments

Heiko Carstens June 3, 2019, 11:11 a.m. UTC | #1
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 12:50:31PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> The following changes since commit 674459be116955e025d6a5e6142e2d500103de8e:
> 
>   MAINTAINERS: add Vasily Gorbik and Christian Borntraeger for s390 (2019-05-31 10:14:15 +0200)
> 
> are available in the Git repository at:
> 
>   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvms390/vfio-ccw.git tags/vfio-ccw-20190603
> 
> for you to fetch changes up to 9b6e57e5a51696171de990b3c41bd53d4b8ab8ac:
> 
>   s390/cio: Remove vfio-ccw checks of command codes (2019-06-03 12:02:55 +0200)
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> various vfio-ccw fixes (ccw translation, state machine)
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Eric Farman (7):
>   s390/cio: Update SCSW if it points to the end of the chain
>   s390/cio: Set vfio-ccw FSM state before ioeventfd
>   s390/cio: Split pfn_array_alloc_pin into pieces
>   s390/cio: Initialize the host addresses in pfn_array
>   s390/cio: Don't pin vfio pages for empty transfers
>   s390/cio: Allow zero-length CCWs in vfio-ccw
>   s390/cio: Remove vfio-ccw checks of command codes

Given that none of the commits contains a stable tag, I assume it's ok
to schedule these for the next merge window (aka 'feature branch')?
Cornelia Huck June 3, 2019, 11:16 a.m. UTC | #2
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 13:11:24 +0200
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 12:50:31PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > The following changes since commit 674459be116955e025d6a5e6142e2d500103de8e:
> > 
> >   MAINTAINERS: add Vasily Gorbik and Christian Borntraeger for s390 (2019-05-31 10:14:15 +0200)
> > 
> > are available in the Git repository at:
> > 
> >   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvms390/vfio-ccw.git tags/vfio-ccw-20190603
> > 
> > for you to fetch changes up to 9b6e57e5a51696171de990b3c41bd53d4b8ab8ac:
> > 
> >   s390/cio: Remove vfio-ccw checks of command codes (2019-06-03 12:02:55 +0200)
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > various vfio-ccw fixes (ccw translation, state machine)
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Eric Farman (7):
> >   s390/cio: Update SCSW if it points to the end of the chain
> >   s390/cio: Set vfio-ccw FSM state before ioeventfd
> >   s390/cio: Split pfn_array_alloc_pin into pieces
> >   s390/cio: Initialize the host addresses in pfn_array
> >   s390/cio: Don't pin vfio pages for empty transfers
> >   s390/cio: Allow zero-length CCWs in vfio-ccw
> >   s390/cio: Remove vfio-ccw checks of command codes  
> 
> Given that none of the commits contains a stable tag, I assume it's ok
> to schedule these for the next merge window (aka 'feature branch')?

All are bug fixes, but for what I think are edge cases. Would be nice
if they could still make it into 5.2, but I have no real problem with
deferring them to the next release, either.

Eric, Farhan: Do you agree?
Farhan Ali June 3, 2019, 1 p.m. UTC | #3
On 06/03/2019 07:16 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 13:11:24 +0200
> Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 12:50:31PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> The following changes since commit 674459be116955e025d6a5e6142e2d500103de8e:
>>>
>>>    MAINTAINERS: add Vasily Gorbik and Christian Borntraeger for s390 (2019-05-31 10:14:15 +0200)
>>>
>>> are available in the Git repository at:
>>>
>>>    https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvms390/vfio-ccw.git tags/vfio-ccw-20190603
>>>
>>> for you to fetch changes up to 9b6e57e5a51696171de990b3c41bd53d4b8ab8ac:
>>>
>>>    s390/cio: Remove vfio-ccw checks of command codes (2019-06-03 12:02:55 +0200)
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> various vfio-ccw fixes (ccw translation, state machine)
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Eric Farman (7):
>>>    s390/cio: Update SCSW if it points to the end of the chain
>>>    s390/cio: Set vfio-ccw FSM state before ioeventfd
>>>    s390/cio: Split pfn_array_alloc_pin into pieces
>>>    s390/cio: Initialize the host addresses in pfn_array
>>>    s390/cio: Don't pin vfio pages for empty transfers
>>>    s390/cio: Allow zero-length CCWs in vfio-ccw
>>>    s390/cio: Remove vfio-ccw checks of command codes
>>
>> Given that none of the commits contains a stable tag, I assume it's ok
>> to schedule these for the next merge window (aka 'feature branch')?
> 
> All are bug fixes, but for what I think are edge cases. Would be nice
> if they could still make it into 5.2, but I have no real problem with
> deferring them to the next release, either.
> 
> Eric, Farhan: Do you agree?
> 
> 
IMHO the first 2 patches should be merged as early as possible. The 2nd 
patch specially for setting the vfio-ccw device state before notifying 
the guest, so the guest doesn't see unexpected errors. This fixes a 
problem that both Eric and I have noticed with long running fio workloads.

The rest of the patches could go as a features for the next merge window.

Thanks
Farhan
Eric Farman June 3, 2019, 1:23 p.m. UTC | #4
On 6/3/19 7:16 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 13:11:24 +0200
> Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 12:50:31PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> The following changes since commit 674459be116955e025d6a5e6142e2d500103de8e:
>>>
>>>   MAINTAINERS: add Vasily Gorbik and Christian Borntraeger for s390 (2019-05-31 10:14:15 +0200)
>>>
>>> are available in the Git repository at:
>>>
>>>   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvms390/vfio-ccw.git tags/vfio-ccw-20190603
>>>
>>> for you to fetch changes up to 9b6e57e5a51696171de990b3c41bd53d4b8ab8ac:
>>>
>>>   s390/cio: Remove vfio-ccw checks of command codes (2019-06-03 12:02:55 +0200)
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> various vfio-ccw fixes (ccw translation, state machine)
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Eric Farman (7):
>>>   s390/cio: Update SCSW if it points to the end of the chain
>>>   s390/cio: Set vfio-ccw FSM state before ioeventfd
>>>   s390/cio: Split pfn_array_alloc_pin into pieces
>>>   s390/cio: Initialize the host addresses in pfn_array
>>>   s390/cio: Don't pin vfio pages for empty transfers
>>>   s390/cio: Allow zero-length CCWs in vfio-ccw
>>>   s390/cio: Remove vfio-ccw checks of command codes  
>>
>> Given that none of the commits contains a stable tag, I assume it's ok
>> to schedule these for the next merge window (aka 'feature branch')?
> 
> All are bug fixes, but for what I think are edge cases. Would be nice
> if they could still make it into 5.2, but I have no real problem with
> deferring them to the next release, either.
> 
> Eric, Farhan: Do you agree?
> 

Agreed, it would be nice for 5.2, but the next merge window is fine with
me too.
Heiko Carstens June 4, 2019, 3:24 p.m. UTC | #5
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 01:16:41PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 13:11:24 +0200
> Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 12:50:31PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > The following changes since commit 674459be116955e025d6a5e6142e2d500103de8e:
> > > 
> > >   MAINTAINERS: add Vasily Gorbik and Christian Borntraeger for s390 (2019-05-31 10:14:15 +0200)
> > > 
> > > are available in the Git repository at:
> > > 
> > >   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvms390/vfio-ccw.git tags/vfio-ccw-20190603
> > > 
> > > for you to fetch changes up to 9b6e57e5a51696171de990b3c41bd53d4b8ab8ac:
> > > 
> > >   s390/cio: Remove vfio-ccw checks of command codes (2019-06-03 12:02:55 +0200)
> > > 
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > various vfio-ccw fixes (ccw translation, state machine)
> > > 
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 
> > > Eric Farman (7):
> > >   s390/cio: Update SCSW if it points to the end of the chain
> > >   s390/cio: Set vfio-ccw FSM state before ioeventfd
> > >   s390/cio: Split pfn_array_alloc_pin into pieces
> > >   s390/cio: Initialize the host addresses in pfn_array
> > >   s390/cio: Don't pin vfio pages for empty transfers
> > >   s390/cio: Allow zero-length CCWs in vfio-ccw
> > >   s390/cio: Remove vfio-ccw checks of command codes  
> > 
> > Given that none of the commits contains a stable tag, I assume it's ok
> > to schedule these for the next merge window (aka 'feature branch')?
> 
> All are bug fixes, but for what I think are edge cases. Would be nice
> if they could still make it into 5.2, but I have no real problem with
> deferring them to the next release, either.
> 
> Eric, Farhan: Do you agree?

As discussed on IRC: pulled and pushed to features branch. Urgent
fixes really should either have a stable and/or fixes tag, if
possible.

Thank you!