|
From: | Farhan Ali |
Subject: | Re: [qemu-s390x] [PATCH v5] vfio-ccw: support async command subregion |
Date: | Fri, 7 Jun 2019 11:19:09 -0400 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 |
On 06/07/2019 11:09 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 11:02:36 -0400 Farhan Ali <address@hidden> wrote:On 06/07/2019 10:53 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:A vfio-ccw device may provide an async command subregion for issuing halt/clear subchannel requests. If it is present, use it for sending halt/clear request to the device; if not, fall back to emulation (as done today). Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <address@hidden> --- v4->v5: - It seems we need to take the indirection via the class for the callbacks after all :( - Dropped Eric's R-b: for that reason --- hw/s390x/css.c | 27 +++++++-- hw/s390x/s390-ccw.c | 20 +++++++ hw/vfio/ccw.c | 112 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- include/hw/s390x/css.h | 3 + include/hw/s390x/s390-ccw.h | 2 + 5 files changed, 158 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/hw/s390x/css.c b/hw/s390x/css.c index ad310b9f94bc..b92395f165e6 100644 --- a/hw/s390x/css.c +++ b/hw/s390x/css.c @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ #include "trace.h" #include "hw/s390x/s390_flic.h" #include "hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.h" +#include "hw/s390x/s390-ccw.h"typedef struct CrwContainer {CRW crw; @@ -1205,6 +1206,26 @@ static void sch_handle_start_func_virtual(SubchDev *sch)} +static void sch_handle_halt_func_passthrough(SubchDev *sch)+{ + int ret; + + ret = s390_ccw_halt(sch); + if (ret == -ENOSYS) { + sch_handle_halt_func(sch); + } +} + +static void sch_handle_clear_func_passthrough(SubchDev *sch) +{ + int ret; + + ret = s390_ccw_clear(sch); + if (ret == -ENOSYS) { + sch_handle_clear_func(sch); + } +} +do we need an extra s390_ccw_clear/halt functions? can't we just call cdc->clear/halt in the passthrough functions?I mostly added them for symmetry reasons... we still need to check for presence of the callback in any case, though. (vfio is not always built, e.g. on windows or os x.)
right, but if we are calling do_subchannel_work_passthrough, then we know for sure we are building the S390CCWDevice which is the vfio device, no?
So we could just add checks for callbacks in sch_handle_clear/halt_func_passthrough, no?
I would even like to get rid of the s390_ccw_cmd_request if we can, but that is out of scope for this patch. :)
static IOInstEnding sch_handle_start_func_passthrough(SubchDev *sch) { SCHIB *schib = &sch->curr_status; @@ -1244,11 +1265,9 @@ IOInstEnding do_subchannel_work_passthrough(SubchDev *sch) SCHIB *schib = &sch->curr_status;if (schib->scsw.ctrl & SCSW_FCTL_CLEAR_FUNC) {- /* TODO: Clear handling */ - sch_handle_clear_func(sch); + sch_handle_clear_func_passthrough(sch); } else if (schib->scsw.ctrl & SCSW_FCTL_HALT_FUNC) { - /* TODO: Halt handling */ - sch_handle_halt_func(sch); + sch_handle_halt_func_passthrough(sch); } else if (schib->scsw.ctrl & SCSW_FCTL_START_FUNC) { return sch_handle_start_func_passthrough(sch); } diff --git a/hw/s390x/s390-ccw.c b/hw/s390x/s390-ccw.c index f5f025d1b6ca..951be5ab0245 100644 --- a/hw/s390x/s390-ccw.c +++ b/hw/s390x/s390-ccw.c @@ -29,6 +29,26 @@ IOInstEnding s390_ccw_cmd_request(SubchDev *sch) return cdc->handle_request(sch); }+int s390_ccw_halt(SubchDev *sch)+{ + S390CCWDeviceClass *cdc = S390_CCW_DEVICE_GET_CLASS(sch->driver_data); + + if (!cdc->handle_halt) { + return -ENOSYS; + } + return cdc->handle_halt(sch); +} + +int s390_ccw_clear(SubchDev *sch) +{ + S390CCWDeviceClass *cdc = S390_CCW_DEVICE_GET_CLASS(sch->driver_data); + + if (!cdc->handle_clear) { + return -ENOSYS; + } + return cdc->handle_clear(sch); +} +
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |