lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 03/15] KVM: s390: refactor crypto initialization
    On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 09:01:12 -0400
    Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

    > 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.
    >
    > >
    >

    It seems we are in violent agreement :)

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2018-04-24 16:02    [W:4.368 / U:0.056 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site