Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] KVM selftests for s390x

2019-05-22 Thread Andrew Jones
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 01:43:06PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 20/05/19 13:30, Thomas Huth wrote: > >> No objections at all, though it would be like to have ucall plumbed in > >> from the beginning. > > I'm still looking at the ucall interface ... what I don't quite get yet > > is the question

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] KVM selftests for s390x

2019-05-20 Thread Paolo Bonzini
On 20/05/19 13:30, Thomas Huth wrote: >> No objections at all, though it would be like to have ucall plumbed in >> from the beginning. > I'm still looking at the ucall interface ... what I don't quite get yet > is the question why the ucall_type there is selectable during runtime? > > Are there pl

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] KVM selftests for s390x

2019-05-20 Thread Thomas Huth
On 20/05/2019 13.20, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 16/05/19 13:12, Thomas Huth wrote: >> This patch series enables the KVM selftests for s390x. As a first >> test, the sync_regs from x86 has been adapted to s390x. >> >> Please note that the ucall() interface is not used yet - since >> s390x neither has

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] KVM selftests for s390x

2019-05-20 Thread Paolo Bonzini
On 16/05/19 13:12, Thomas Huth wrote: > This patch series enables the KVM selftests for s390x. As a first > test, the sync_regs from x86 has been adapted to s390x. > > Please note that the ucall() interface is not used yet - since > s390x neither has PIO nor MMIO, this needs some more work first >