On Fri, Jul 16 2021, Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 11:10:04AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 15 2021, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> > Pierre Morel <pmo...@linux.ibm.com> writes: >> > >> >> On 7/15/21 8:16 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> >>> Pierre Morel <pmo...@linux.ibm.com> writes: >> >>> >> >>>> Drawers and Books are levels 4 and 3 of the S390 CPU >> >>>> topology. >> >>>> We allow the user to define these levels and we will >> >>>> store the values inside the S390CcwMachineState. >> >>> >> >>> Double-checking: are these members specific to S390? >> >> >> >> Yes AFAIK >> > >> > Makes me wonder whether they should be conditional on TARGET_S390X. >> > >> > What happens when you specify them for another target? Silently >> > ignored, or error? >> >> I'm wondering whether we should include them in the base machine state >> and treat them as we treat 'dies' (i.e. the standard parser errors out >> if they are set, and only the s390x parser supports them.) > > To repeat what i just wrote in my reply to patch 1, I think we ought to > think about a different approach to handling the usage constraints, > which doesn't require full re-implementation of the smp_parse method > each time. There should be a way for each target to report topology > constraints, such the the single smp_parse method can do the right > thing, especially wrt error reporting for unsupported values. That would mean that all possible fields would need to go into common code, right? I'm wondering whether there are more architecture/cpu specific values lurking in the corner, it would get unwieldy if we need to go beyond the existing fields and drawers/books.
