Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 03/15] KVM: s390: refactor crypto initialization | From | Tony Krowiak <> | Date | Tue, 24 Apr 2018 09:01:12 -0400 |
| |
On 04/23/2018 03:03 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 10:52:55 -0400 > Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> (Not providing a crycb if APXA is not available would be loss of >>>>>>> functionality, I guess? Deciding not to provide vfio-ap if APXA is not >>>>>>> available is a different game, of course.) >>>>>> This would require a change to enabling the CPU model feature for >>>>>> AP. >>>>> But would it actually make sense to tie vfio-ap to APXA? This needs to >>>>> be answered by folks with access to the architecture :) >>>> I don't see any reason to do that from an architectural perspective. >>>> One can access AP devices whether APXA is installed or not, it just limits >>>> the range of devices that can be addressed >>> So I guess we should not introduce a tie-in then (unless it radically >>> simplifies the code...) >> I'm not clear about what you mean by introducing a tie-in. Can you >> clarify that? > Making vfio-ap depend on APXA.
I don't think vfio-ap should be dependent upon APXA for the reasons I stated above.
>
| |