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 v6 05/21] KVM: s390: CPU model support for AP
 virtualization
To:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Cc:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, freude@de.ibm.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com,
        heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, kwankhede@nvidia.com,
        bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        alex.williamson@redhat.com, pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        alifm@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mjrosato@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        jjherne@linux.vnet.ibm.com, thuth@redhat.com,
        pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com, berrange@redhat.com,
        fiuczy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, buendgen@de.ibm.com
References: <1530306683-7270-1-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1530306683-7270-6-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <ceb1d797-9bb3-cb6e-c510-657fc61a7f82@de.ibm.com>
 <276b5ae7-7f27-faae-1e5a-0d4c084139e9@linux.ibm.com>
 <20180702174103.5d1ce603.cohuck@redhat.com>
From:   Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 2 Jul 2018 11:54:28 -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: <20180702174103.5d1ce603.cohuck@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Message-Id: <d1eb3115-cc3c-cc4f-b683-1a660aa0c6c9@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 07/02/2018 11:41 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 11:37:11 -0400
> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> On 07/02/2018 10:38 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>> On 06/29/2018 11:11 PM, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>>>> Introduces a new CPU model feature and two CPU model
>>>> facilities to support AP virtualization for KVM guests.
>>>>
>>>> CPU model feature:
>>>>
>>>> The KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP feature indicates that
>>>> AP instructions are available on the guest. This
>>>> feature will be enabled by the kernel only if the AP
>>>> instructions are installed on the linux host. This feature
>>>> must be specifically turned on for the KVM guest from
>>>> userspace to use the VFIO AP device driver for guest
>>>> access to AP devices.
>>>>
>>>> CPU model facilities:
>>>>
>>>> 1. AP Query Configuration Information (QCI) facility is installed.
>>>>
>>>>      This is indicated by setting facilities bit 12 for
>>>>      the guest. The kernel will not enable this facility
>>>>      for the guest if it is not set on the host. This facility
>>>>      must not be set by userspace if the KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP
>>>>      feature is not installed.
>>>>
>>>>      If this facility is not set for the KVM guest, then only
>>>>      APQNs with an APQI less than 16 will be available to the
>>>>      guest regardless of the guest's matrix configuration. This
>>>>      is a limitation of the AP bus running on the guest.
>>>>
>>>> 2. AP Facilities Test facility (APFT) is installed.
>>>>
>>>>      This is indicated by setting facilities bit 15 for
>>>>      the guest. The kernel will not enable this facility for
>>>>      the guest if it is not set on the host. This facility
>>>>      must not be set by userspace if the KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP
>>>>      feature is not installed.
>>>>
>>>>      If this facility is not set for the KVM guest, then no
>>>>      AP devices will be available to the guest regardless of
>>>>      the guest's matrix configuration. This is a limitation
>>>>      of the AP bus running under the guest.
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
>>> I think it probably should be at the end of the series, other than that its good.
>> If I move this to the end of the series, the very next patch checks the
>>
>> KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP feature?
> Introduce it here, offer it only with the last patch?

I apologize, but I don't know what you mean by this. Are you suggesting 
this patch
should only include the #define for KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP?

>