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. Seems to be the right thing to do Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
