Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/3] Channel Path realted CRW generation

[Cornelia Huck]

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 23:50:48 +0800
Dong Jia Shi <address@hidden> wrote:

> * Cornelia Huck <address@hidden> [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. 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.

> 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.


> > > 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).

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.