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

Tony Krowiak
2018-04-24T13:01:12Z

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.

>