[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [qemu-s390x] [PATCH v1 3/3] s390x/sclp: extend SCLP event masks to 6
From: |
Cornelia Huck |
Subject: |
Re: [qemu-s390x] [PATCH v1 3/3] s390x/sclp: extend SCLP event masks to 64 bits |
Date: |
Wed, 21 Feb 2018 18:33:16 +0100 |
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:51:19 +0100
Claudio Imbrenda <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 16:34:59 +0100
> Cornelia Huck <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 19:45:02 +0100
> > Claudio Imbrenda <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > +static const VMStateDescription vmstate_event_facility_mask64 = {
> > > + .name = "vmstate-event-facility/mask64",
> > > + .version_id = 0,
> > > + .minimum_version_id = 0,
> > > + .needed = vmstate_event_facility_mask64_needed,
> > > + .pre_load = vmstate_event_facility_mask64_pre_load,
> > > + .fields = (VMStateField[]) {
> > > + VMSTATE_UINT64(receive_mask, SCLPEventFacility),
> > > + VMSTATE_END_OF_LIST()
> > > + }
> > > +};
> > > +
> >
> > Are there plans for extending this beyond 64 bits? Would it make sense
>
> I don't know. I'm not even aware of anything above 32 bits, but since we
> are already using all of the first 32 bits, it's only matter of time I
> guess :)
>
> > to use the maximum possible size for the mask here, so you don't need
> > to introduce yet another vmstate in the future? (If it's unlikely that
>
> That's true, but it requires changing simple scalars into bitmasks.
> Surely doable, but I wanted to touch as little as possible.
OK, that pushes this firmly into the 'overkill' area. Let's just go
with your current approach.
>
> > the mask will ever move beyond 64 bit, that might be overkill, of
> > course.)
[qemu-s390x] [PATCH v1 3/3] s390x/sclp: extend SCLP event masks to 64 bits, Claudio Imbrenda, 2018/02/20
[qemu-s390x] [PATCH v1 1/3] s390x/sclp: proper support of larger send and receive masks, Claudio Imbrenda, 2018/02/20
Re: [qemu-s390x] [PATCH v1 0/3] s390x/sclp: 64 bit event masks, Cornelia Huck, 2018/02/21