On 16.12.2013, at 22:42, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote:
>
> On 16.12.2013, at 21:51, Matthew Rosato <mjros...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
[...]
>
>> + }
>> + }
>> + }
>> + sccb->h.response_code = cpu_to_be16(SCLP_RC_NORMAL_COMPLETION);
>> +}
>> +
>> static void sclp_execute(SCCB *sccb, uint64_t code)
>> {
>> S390SCLPDevice *sdev = get_event_facility();
>> @@ -50,6 +255,22 @@ static void sclp_execute(SCCB *sccb, uint64_t code)
>> case SCLP_CMDW_READ_SCP_INFO_FORCED:
>> read_SCP_info(sccb);
>> break;
>> + case SCLP_READ_STORAGE_ELEMENT_INFO:
>> + if (code & 0xff00) {
>> + read_storage_element1_info(sccb);
>> + } else {
>> + read_storage_element0_info(sccb);
>> + }
>> + break;
>> + case SCLP_ATTACH_STORAGE_ELEMENT:
>> + attach_storage_element(sccb, (code & 0xff00) >> 8);
>> + break;
>> + case SCLP_ASSIGN_STORAGE:
>> + assign_storage(sccb);
>> + break;
>> + case SCLP_UNASSIGN_STORAGE:
>> + unassign_storage(sccb);
>> + break;
>
> Do you think it'd be possible to model this whole thing as a device that has
> its own state? That's where you could keep the bitmap for example. You'd only
> need some callback mechanism to hook into the SCLP calls, but the PPC guys
> already have something similar with their hypercalls.
Speaking of state - in the current model the "is standby storage active" bitmap
doesn't get migrated, no?
Alex
