Re: [PATCH v4 03/15] KVM: s390: refactor crypto initialization

[Tony Krowiak]

On 04/23/2018 03:03 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 10:52:55 -0400
> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.

>