Re: [PATCH v4 03/15] KVM: s390: refactor crypto initialization

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

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 :)