On 05.05.20 10:27, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > 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? Yes, I'd say so. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
