Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/15] KVM: s390: refactor crypto initialization
To:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Cc:     Harald Freudenberger <FREUDE@de.ibm.com>,
        Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        alex.williamson@redhat.com, alifm@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        berrange@redhat.com, bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        borntrae@linux.ibm.com, fiuczy@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        heicars2@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jjherne@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, kwankhede@nvidia.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        mjrosato@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mschwid2@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        Reinhard Buendgen <BUENDGEN@de.ibm.com>, thuth@redhat.com
References: <1523827345-11600-1-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1523827345-11600-4-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <4fb50a31-1893-5cfb-0f35-fb2501c2afa8@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <OFE3FE11B1.8E1BDDEF-ON00258272.002AEDB1-C1258272.002B06EF@notes.na.collabserv.com>
 <20180417121044.5c8f2182.cohuck@redhat.com>
 <2ac8b862-e2dc-843e-a0b8-906fa32b42f4@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180417172139.0a2b148b.cohuck@redhat.com>
 <7276785e-2183-3204-ec80-99fba1546364@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180418094949.0403dcaf.cohuck@redhat.com>
 <470d8af7-b9f6-0ab7-9bfa-351fbeaa079c@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180423090337.1b8b465a.cohuck@redhat.com>
From:   Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Apr 2018 09:01:12 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180423090337.1b8b465a.cohuck@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Message-Id: <192888a1-afc8-8502-5c6f-dbb16625bda2@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 04/23/2018 03:03 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 10:52:55 -0400
> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> (Not providing a crycb if APXA is not available would be loss of
>>>>>>> functionality, I guess? Deciding not to provide vfio-ap if APXA is not
>>>>>>> available is a different game, of course.)
>>>>>> This would require a change to enabling the CPU model feature for
>>>>>> AP.
>>>>> But would it actually make sense to tie vfio-ap to APXA? This needs to
>>>>> be answered by folks with access to the architecture :)
>>>> I don't see any reason to do that from an architectural perspective.
>>>> One can access AP devices whether APXA is installed or not, it just limits
>>>> the range of devices that can be addressed
>>> So I guess we should not introduce a tie-in then (unless it radically
>>> simplifies the code...)
>> I'm not clear about what you mean by introducing a tie-in. Can you
>> clarify that?
> Making vfio-ap depend on APXA.

I don't think vfio-ap should be dependent upon APXA for the reasons I 
stated above.

>