Re: [PATCH v11 25/26] KVM: s390: CPU model support for AP virtualization

[Christian Borntraeger]

On 09/26/2018 09:15 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 26/09/2018 01:16, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>> From: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Introduces two new CPU model facilities to support
>> AP virtualization for KVM guests:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>    If this facility is not set for the KVM guest, then only
>>    APQNs with an APQI less than 16 will be used by a Linux
>>    guest regardless of the matrix configuration for the virtual
>>    machine. This is a limitation of the Linux AP bus.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>    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 for the virtual
>>    machine. This is a limitation of the Linux AP bus.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Tested-by: Michael Mueller <mimu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Tested-by: Farhan Ali <alifm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c         | 1 +
>>  arch/s390/tools/gen_facilities.c | 2 ++
>>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> index 81fd82f7626d..444965e78010 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> @@ -371,6 +371,7 @@ static void kvm_s390_cpu_feat_init(void)
>>  
>>  	if (MACHINE_HAS_ESOP)
>>  		allow_cpu_feat(KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_ESOP);
>> +
> 
> This unrelated change should be dropped.

I can fixup when applying.

> 
> (can maybe be fixed when applying)
> 
> Apart from that looks good!
>