On Tue, 5 May 2020 10:27:16 +0200 Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05.05.20 10:04, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > On 05.05.20 09:55, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 05.05.20 09:53, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >>> On Tue, 5 May 2020 09:35:25 +0200 > >>> Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>>> In LPAR we will only get an intercept for FC==3 for the PQAP > >>>> instruction. Running nested under z/VM can result in other intercepts as > >>>> well, for example PQAP(QCI). So the WARN_ON_ONCE is not right. Let > >>>> us simply remove it. > >>> > >>> While I agree with removing the WARN_ON_ONCE, I'm wondering why z/VM > >>> gives us intercepts for those fcs... is that just a result of nesting > >>> (or the z/VM implementation), or is there anything we might want to do? > >> > >> Yes nesting. > >> The ECA bit for interpretion is an effective one. So if the ECA bit is off > >> in z/VM (no crypto cards) our ECA bit is basically ignored as these bits > >> are ANDed. > >> I asked Tony to ask the z/VM team if that is the case here. > >> > > > > So we can't detect if we have support for ECA_APIE, because there is no > > explicit feature bit, right? Rings a bell. Still an ugly > > hardware/firmware specification. > > Yes, no matter if this is the case here, we cannot rely on ECA_APIE to not > trigger intercepts. So we must remove the WARN_ON. > > cc stable? Agreed. > > > > > Seems to be the right thing to do > > > > Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >
