On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 15:06:33 +0100 David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 29.11.2017 14:51, Thomas Huth wrote: > > On 28.11.2017 21:33, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >> I have quite some patches on my queue for 2.12. (booting Fedora 26/27 > >> guests, floating interrupts, machine checks, missing instructions ...) > >> > >> So let's start slowly :) This series gets rid of program_interrupt() and > >> potential_page_fault(). We now always properly restore the cpu state when > >> injecting/delivering a program interrupt. So there is no need to update > >> the state via potential_page_fault() anymore. > > > > I think this series is basically a very good idea! But... > > OK, this is kind of bike-shed-painting now, but since we're currently in > > hard freeze anyway and got plenty of time for discussion: > > Something that bothers me a little bit is the name of the new function > > "program_interrupt_ra()" ... that would IMHO be OK if the old function > > "program_interrupt" would still stay, but since that is removed and the > > _ra function is the only generic way that is left to inject a program > > interrupt, could we maybe name the new function somewhat nicer right > > from the start? Something like "s390_program_interrupt" maybe (which is > > similar to tcg_s390_program_interrupt and kvm_s390_program_interrupt > > that we have already)? > > Sure I can do that, other opinions? Fine with me as well.
