On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 10:52:55 -0400 Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
