On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 17:34:26 -0400
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 07/27/2018 07:26 AM, Halil Pasic wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 07/27/2018 01:17 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 13:13:40 +0200
> >> Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> @@ -65,6 +66,21 @@ static int vfio_ap_matrix_dev_create(void)
> >>>>> {
> >>>>> int ret;
> >>>>> + mutex_init(&matrix_dev.lock);
> >>>>> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&matrix_dev.mdev_list);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + /* Test if PQAP(QCI) instruction is available */
> >>>>> + if (test_facility(12)) {
> >>>>> + ret = ap_qci(&matrix_dev.info);
> >>>>> + if (ret && (ret != -EOPNOTSUPP)) {
> >>>>
> >>>> So, is facility 12 a pre-req for PQAP(QCI)? Can the code work if
> >>>> matrix_dev.info is not populated?
> >>>
> >>> Yes and yes. It's basically only used in vfio_ap_matrix_init() and it
> >>> has fallbacks.
> >>
> >> Ok. So facility 12 is required but not sufficient for PQAP(QCI) to be
> >> available? (Just asking as I cannot check the doc; if it works with
> >> fallbacks I'm fine.)
>
> I took a look at the ap_qci() function. It returns:
>
> 0: success
> -EOPNOTSUPP: returned when an exception occurs executing the
> PQAP(QCI) instruction
>
> I conclude that if STFLE.12 is set, then the PQAP(QCI) instruction
> should work. If -ENOPNOTSUPP is returned, then this would be a
> serious error and I think we should return an error from this function.
Sounds reasonable to me.
>
> >>
> >
> > AFAIR it should be sufficient in our case. My guess is that the non 0
> > return code stands for program exceptions that are not related to the
> > availability of QCI.
>
>
>
>
--
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
