Please implement the subfunction stuff right away. This will allow toOK, we definitively need another patch/patch-set, to handle this.In this case we will have no problem with older guests not having ideaAny feature the guest sees, should be part of the CPU model. The whole
about APXA.
Would it be a solution?
environment for cpu subfunctions is already in place both in KVM and
QEMU. Only disabling subfunctions in KVM is not implemented yet.
You can exclude any subfunctions/facilities that are only valid on LPAR
level and cannot be used in some guest either way. (that makes life
sometimes easier)
I know that this might sound a little bit complicated, but it really
isn't. Boils down to modifying kvm_s390_cpu_feat_init() and specifying
some features+feature groups in QEMU.
Do you think it can be done in another series since if we always support
APXA when we have AP instructions, we already have an indication that
APXA exist: the AP facility.
handle all future facilities transparently from a kernel POV.
Implementing that should be easy - and I don't like gluing features
together in such a way.
You can always assure that consistent data (e.g. AP + APXA availability)
is reported from KVM to QEMU.
Regards,
Pierre