On 18.04.19 09:35, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > On 17.04.19 20:29, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >> Instead of adding a new machine option to disable/enable the keywrapping >> options of pckmo (like for AES and DEA) we can now use the CPU model to >> decide. >> >> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Reviewed-by: Collin Walling <walling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> v1->v2: - enable vsie >> - also check if the host has the pckmo functions >> arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 + >> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 7 +++++++ >> arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c | 5 ++++- >> 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > FWIW, I tested this variant successfully with some printk debugging to > check if the settings are good. The only question is: does anybody cares > about > if ((vcpu->kvm->arch.model.subfuncs.pckmo[4] & kvm_s390_available_subfunc.pckmo[4] & 0xe0) || > (vcpu->kvm->arch.model.subfuncs.pckmo[5] & kvm_s390_available_subfunc.pckmo[5] & 0xc0)) > > being too long? I find this more readable than > > if ((vcpu->kvm->arch.model.subfuncs.pckmo[4] & > kvm_s390_available_subfunc.pckmo[4] & 0xe0) || > (vcpu->kvm->arch.model.subfuncs.pckmo[5] & > kvm_s390_available_subfunc.pckmo[5] & 0xc0)) > Can you just factor that out into a function / makro? > Christian > -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
