On 7/7/21 10:54 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: [...] > >>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c >>> index b655a7d82bf0..aadd589a3755 100644 >>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c >>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c >>> @@ -3200,6 +3200,8 @@ static int kvm_s390_vcpu_setup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >>> vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_SRSI; >>> if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 73)) >>> vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_TE; > > Maybe add > > /* no facility bit, but safe as the hardware may ignore it */ > > or something like that, so that we don't stumble over that in the future? Well, the hardware being allowed to ignore the bit makes its introduction without an indication forward compatible because it does not require vSIE to be adapted. The reserved bits are implicitly set to 0 which means new features are disabled by default and one observes all the interception one expects. Maybe this: /* no facility bit, can opt in because we do not need to observe specification exception intercepts */ ? > >>> + if (!kvm_is_ucontrol(vcpu->kvm)) >>> + vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_SPECI; >>> >>> if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 8) && vcpu->kvm->arch.use_pfmfi) >>> vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb2 |= ECB2_PFMFI; > > Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> >
