On Tue, 21 May 2019 16:50:47 -0400 Farhan Ali <al...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 05/07/2019 11:47 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 <coh...@redhat.com> > > --- > > hw/s390x/css.c | 27 +++++++-- > > hw/vfio/ccw.c | 110 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > include/hw/s390x/s390-ccw.h | 3 + > > 3 files changed, 134 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/hw/s390x/s390-ccw.h b/include/hw/s390x/s390-ccw.h > > index 901d805d79a3..e9c7e1db5761 100644 > > --- a/include/hw/s390x/s390-ccw.h > > +++ b/include/hw/s390x/s390-ccw.h > > @@ -37,4 +37,7 @@ typedef struct S390CCWDeviceClass { > > IOInstEnding (*handle_request) (SubchDev *sch); > > } S390CCWDeviceClass; > > > > +int vfio_ccw_handle_clear(SubchDev *sch); > > +int vfio_ccw_handle_halt(SubchDev *sch); > > + > > We are not making clear and halt functions part of the > S390CCWDeviceClass, is there are reason for doing this? > Currently we handle ssch through the handle_request function, it just > looks a little inconsistent. I don't quite remember why I did it this way; not sure if there is a good reason for that (that patch has been around for too long...) We can change such internal details later on, though. (And I think your comment has merit.)