On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:02:26 +0100Is it sufficient to specify 'depends on ZCRYPT && VFIO_MDEV_DEVICE'
Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 14/11/2017 17:37, Tony Krowiak wrote:Using select for anything that's not a simple infrastructure dependency
On 11/14/2017 07:40 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:Is doing like the others a sufficient good reason?
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 13:38:50 -0400It's ironic because I originally changed from using 'depends on' and
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
diff --git a/arch/s390/Kconfig b/arch/s390/KconfigI think the more common pattern is to depend on the VFIO configs
index 48af970..411c19a 100644
--- a/arch/s390/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/s390/Kconfig
@@ -722,6 +722,19 @@ config VFIO_CCW
To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the
module will be called vfio_ccw.
+config VFIO_AP_MATRIX
+ def_tristate m
+ prompt "Support for Adjunct Processor Matrix device interface"
+ depends on ZCRYPT
+ select VFIO
+ select MDEV
+ select VFIO_MDEV
+ select VFIO_MDEV_DEVICE
+ select IOMMU_API
instead of selecting them.
changed it based on review comments made
on our internal mailing list. I'll go with 'depends on'.
What if the first who did this did not really think about it?
When an administrator configure the kernel what does he think?
- I want to have AP through AP_VFIO in my guests
and he get implicitly VFIO
or
- I want to have VFIO
and he has to explicitly add AP_VFIO too
It seems to me that the first is much more user friendly.
Please tell me if I missed something. dependencies? collateral damages?
my logic is wrong?
may lead into trouble (we've had issues in the past where options tried
to enable other options but missed dependencies).
If a user wants to use vfio-ap, I think it is reasonable to expect them
to figure out that they need both ap and vfio for that.
[And config help has gotten much better than it was years ago; it's not
that hard to figure out what is actually needed.]