Re: [PATCH 1/1] s390/ipl: sync back loadparm

2020-03-06 Thread Halil Pasic
On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 17:21:44 +0100 Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > On 05.03.20 15:25, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > > > > On 05.03.20 15:11, Halil Pasic wrote: > >> On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 13:44:31 +0100 > >> Christian Borntraeger wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 25.02.20 15:35, Viktor

Re: [PATCH 1/1] s390/ipl: sync back loadparm

2020-03-05 Thread Christian Borntraeger
On 05.03.20 15:25, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > On 05.03.20 15:11, Halil Pasic wrote: >> On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 13:44:31 +0100 >> Christian Borntraeger wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 25.02.20 15:35, Viktor Mihajlovski wrote: On 2/25/20 12:56 PM, Halil Pasic wrote: > On Tue, 25

Re: [PATCH 1/1] s390/ipl: sync back loadparm

2020-03-05 Thread Christian Borntraeger
On 05.03.20 15:11, Halil Pasic wrote: > On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 13:44:31 +0100 > Christian Borntraeger wrote: > >> >> >> On 25.02.20 15:35, Viktor Mihajlovski wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2/25/20 12:56 PM, Halil Pasic wrote: On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 10:39:40 +0100 David Hildenbrand wrote:

Re: [PATCH 1/1] s390/ipl: sync back loadparm

2020-03-05 Thread Halil Pasic
On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 13:44:31 +0100 Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > On 25.02.20 15:35, Viktor Mihajlovski wrote: > > > > > > On 2/25/20 12:56 PM, Halil Pasic wrote: > >> On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 10:39:40 +0100 > >> David Hildenbrand wrote: > >> > >>> On 24.02.20 16:02, Halil Pasic wrote: >

Re: [PATCH 1/1] s390/ipl: sync back loadparm

2020-03-05 Thread Christian Borntraeger
On 25.02.20 15:35, Viktor Mihajlovski wrote: > > > On 2/25/20 12:56 PM, Halil Pasic wrote: >> On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 10:39:40 +0100 >> David Hildenbrand wrote: >> >>> On 24.02.20 16:02, Halil Pasic wrote: We expose loadparm as a r/w machine property, but if loadparm is set by the

Re: [PATCH 1/1] s390/ipl: sync back loadparm

2020-02-25 Thread Cornelia Huck
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 15:35:47 +0100 Viktor Mihajlovski wrote: > On 2/25/20 12:56 PM, Halil Pasic wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 10:39:40 +0100 > > David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > >> On 24.02.20 16:02, Halil Pasic wrote: > >>> We expose loadparm as a r/w machine property, but if loadparm is

Re: [PATCH 1/1] s390/ipl: sync back loadparm

2020-02-25 Thread Viktor Mihajlovski
On 2/25/20 12:56 PM, Halil Pasic wrote: On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 10:39:40 +0100 David Hildenbrand wrote: On 24.02.20 16:02, Halil Pasic wrote: We expose loadparm as a r/w machine property, but if loadparm is set by the guest via DIAG 308, we don't update the property. Having a disconnect

Re: [PATCH 1/1] s390/ipl: sync back loadparm

2020-02-25 Thread Halil Pasic
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 10:39:40 +0100 David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 24.02.20 16:02, Halil Pasic wrote: > > We expose loadparm as a r/w machine property, but if loadparm is set by > > the guest via DIAG 308, we don't update the property. Having a > > disconnect between the guest view and the QEMU

Re: [PATCH 1/1] s390/ipl: sync back loadparm

2020-02-25 Thread David Hildenbrand
On 24.02.20 16:02, Halil Pasic wrote: > We expose loadparm as a r/w machine property, but if loadparm is set by > the guest via DIAG 308, we don't update the property. Having a > disconnect between the guest view and the QEMU property is not nice in > itself, but things get even worse for SCSI,

[PATCH 1/1] s390/ipl: sync back loadparm

2020-02-24 Thread Halil Pasic
We expose loadparm as a r/w machine property, but if loadparm is set by the guest via DIAG 308, we don't update the property. Having a disconnect between the guest view and the QEMU property is not nice in itself, but things get even worse for SCSI, where under certain circumstances (see