On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 09:46:17 +0800 Dong Jia Shi <bjsdj...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> * Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> [2017-07-28 14:58:19 +0200]: > > Exposing real channel paths to the guest means that the guest OS needs > > to be able to deal with path-related things, but OTOH it has more > > control. As I don't think we'll ever want to support a guest OS that > > does not also run under LPAR, I'd prefer that way. > > > My poor English... Sorry, I don't undersatnd the last sentence... Probably too many negations... let me rephrase. Looking at the guest OSes we want to support, it's currently Linux, Linux, or Linux. And Linux runs fine under LPAR, as it is able to deal with the details of channel path handling (and LPAR does not virtualize anything of this). Of the other OSes, z/OS is way too insanely complex, z/VM does not make much sense, and I don't see a case for z/TPF either. Which leaves z/VSE, which should be able to deal with the path related stuff as well. So, I don't think we close any doors if we expose the path handling complexities to the guest.
