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? > > Seems to be the right thing to do > > Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> >
