On 04/23/2018 03:03 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
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.
I don't think vfio-ap should be dependent upon APXA for the reasons I
stated above.
--
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
