On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 13:52:53 +0100 Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 13:29:46 +0100 > Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 13:17:02 +0100 > > Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > On 05.12.2018 15:51, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > > vfio-ap devices do not pin any pages in the host. Therefore, they > > > > are belived to be compatible with memory ballooning. > > > > > > > > Flag them as compatible, so both vfio-ap and a balloon can be > > > > used simultaneously. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> > > With the comment stuff sorted out: > Reviewed-by: Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.ibm.com> So, do you agree with the comment change I suggested? + /* + * vfio-ap devices operate in a way compatible with + * memory ballooning, as no pages are pinned in the host. + * This needs to be set before vfio_get_device() for vfio common to + * handle the balloon inhibitor. + */ > > @Connie: Just had a look at the MAINTAINERS file and hw/vfio/ap.c > is listed under Arch. support S90 with you as a maintainer, and under > vfio-ap with 4 maintainers listed one of them being me. The question > is who is going to post a PULL request for this? General practice has been that I'm collecting everything s390x related. I have also pulled from others before (e.g. some bios changes from Thomas). While you could apply the patch, send it to me, and then I'd queue it to s390-next, I can also simply queue it directly with your ack :) [Longer term, if you want to collect ap patches and then send me a pull request, I would also be happy to do that. For this single patch, it seems overkill.] > > > > > > > Does it make sense to add cc stable for 3.1? > > > > Can do that, given that s390x systems really rely on the ballooner in > > general. > > > > I agree with cc stable. Will add when applying.
