From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:54568) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hLMxm-00057g-Ne for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 03:14:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hLMxl-0003qY-Py for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 03:14:02 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 09:13:54 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck Message-ID: <20190430091354.23c9aca0.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <6e6c4b4e-4d08-b4fa-1092-06567a6473da@redhat.com> References: <20190429090250.7648-1-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <20190429090250.7648-5-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <0ad32bcf-0132-3905-3220-0f50e26937c3@redhat.com> <6e6c4b4e-4d08-b4fa-1092-06567a6473da@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 4/9] s390x/cpumodel: msa9 facility List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: David Hildenbrand Cc: Christian Borntraeger , qemu-devel , qemu-s390x , Halil Pasic , Richard Henderson , Collin Walling , "Jason J . Herne" On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 09:00:56 +0200 David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 30.04.19 07:41, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > > > > On 29.04.19 21:24, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >> Just wondering, why keep the PCKMO ones separate, but not e.g. PCC ? > > > > Because those can be disabled at the HMC. It is painful to disable 5 elements > > for LPARs that are configured that way. So I created a group for those. That > > will allow to disable the full group. > > (we have the same issue with the exisiting AES and DEA pckmo functions). > > Rings a bell, maybe that information would be good to have in the cover > letter. I guess Conny might want to change the description when picking up: > > "Provide the MSA9 facility (stfle.155). This also contains pckmo > subfunctions for key wrapping. Keep them in a separate group to disable > those as a block if necessary. This is for example needed when disabling > key wrapping via the HMC." Sure, makes sense to fold that in. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09DA0C43219 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 07:15:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF85A2075E for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 07:15:17 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CF85A2075E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40272 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hLMyy-0005ZM-UA for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 03:15:16 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:54568) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hLMxm-00057g-Ne for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 03:14:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hLMxl-0003qY-Py for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 03:14:02 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:60554) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hLMxl-0003q6-JY; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 03:14:01 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7D093086201; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 07:13:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gondolin (dhcp-192-187.str.redhat.com [10.33.192.187]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B2AA79BD; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 07:13:55 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 09:13:54 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck To: David Hildenbrand Message-ID: <20190430091354.23c9aca0.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <6e6c4b4e-4d08-b4fa-1092-06567a6473da@redhat.com> References: <20190429090250.7648-1-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <20190429090250.7648-5-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <0ad32bcf-0132-3905-3220-0f50e26937c3@redhat.com> <6e6c4b4e-4d08-b4fa-1092-06567a6473da@redhat.com> Organization: Red Hat GmbH MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.42]); Tue, 30 Apr 2019 07:13:59 +0000 (UTC) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 4/9] s390x/cpumodel: msa9 facility X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "Jason J . Herne" , Collin Walling , qemu-devel , Halil Pasic , Christian Borntraeger , qemu-s390x , Richard Henderson Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Message-ID: <20190430071354.l_Gzgx6i2XSiKmWLOaoV-iwX07wuT7xOBYAjhpupDss@z> On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 09:00:56 +0200 David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 30.04.19 07:41, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > > > > On 29.04.19 21:24, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >> Just wondering, why keep the PCKMO ones separate, but not e.g. PCC ? > > > > Because those can be disabled at the HMC. It is painful to disable 5 elements > > for LPARs that are configured that way. So I created a group for those. That > > will allow to disable the full group. > > (we have the same issue with the exisiting AES and DEA pckmo functions). > > Rings a bell, maybe that information would be good to have in the cover > letter. I guess Conny might want to change the description when picking up: > > "Provide the MSA9 facility (stfle.155). This also contains pckmo > subfunctions for key wrapping. Keep them in a separate group to disable > those as a block if necessary. This is for example needed when disabling > key wrapping via the HMC." Sure, makes sense to fold that in.