* Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> [2017-09-05 17:46:06 +0200]: > On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 17:24:19 +0200 > Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > My problem with a program check (indicated by SCSW word 2 bit 10) is > > that, in my reading of the architecture, the semantic behind it is: The > > channel subsystem (not the cu or device) has detected, that the > > the channel program (previously submitted as an ORB) is erroneous. Which > > programs are erroneous is specified by the architecture. What we have > > here does not qualify. > > > > My idea was to rather blame the virtual hardware (device) and put no blame > > on the program nor he channel subsystem. This could be done using device > > status (unit check with command reject, maybe unit exception) or interface > > check. My train of thought was, the problem is not consistent across a > > device type, so it has to be device specific. > > Unit exception might be a better way to express what is happening here. > At least, it moves us away from cc 1 and not towards cc 3 :) > > > > > Of course blaming the device could mislead the person encountering the > > problem, and make him believe it's an non-virtual hardware problem. > > > > About the misleading, I think the best we can do is log out a message > > indicating what really happened. > > Just document it in the code? If it doesn't happen with Linux as a > guest, it is highly unlikely to be seen in the wild. > > > > > In the end I don't care that deeply about vfio-ccw, and this problem > > already took me more time than I intended to spend on this. We have > > people driving this whole vfio-ccw stuff and I'm not one of them (I'm > > rather in the supporting role). > > > > I'm also fine with me being credited with a reported-by once the > > more involved people figure out what to do, and keeping the vfio-ccw > > stuff as is. Should we go with that option? > > If converting the reporting to a device status is straightforward > enough, let's do that. I'm fine with postponing this and waiting for a > real fix as well (I don't really have spare cycles to actually write > vfio-ccw code currently...) >
I can do this after this series. [...] -- Dong Jia Shi
