Re: [qemu-s390x] [PATCH v10 2/6] s390x/cpumodel: Set up CPU model for AP device support

[David Hildenbrand]

On 09/10/2018 21:14, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/09/2018 07:52 PM, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>> A new CPU model feature and two new CPU model facilities are
>> introduced to support AP devices for a KVM guest.
>>
>> CPU model features:
>>
>> 1. The S390_FEAT_AP CPU model feature indicates whether AP
>>    instructions are available to the guest. This feature will
>>    be enabled only if the AP instructions are available on the
>>    linux host as determined by the availability of the
>>    KVM_S390_VM_CRYPTO_ENABLE_APIE VM attribute which is exposed
>>    by KVM only if the AP instructions are available on the
>>    host.
>>
>>    This feature must be turned on from userspace to execute AP
>>    instructions on the KVM guest. The QEMU command line to turn
>>    this feature on looks something like this:
>>
>>      qemu-system-s390x ... -cpu xxx,ap=on ...
>>
>>    This feature will be supported for zEC12 and newer CPU models.
>>    The feature will not be supported for older models because
>>    there are few older systems on which to test and the older
>>    crypto cards will be going out of service in the relatively
>>    near future.
>>
>> CPU model facilities:
>>
>> 1. The S390_FEAT_AP_QUERY_CONFIG_INFO feature indicates whether the
>>    AP Query Configuration Information (QCI) facility is available
>>    to the guest as determined by whether the facility is available
>>    on the host. This feature will be exposed by KVM only if the
>>    QCI facility is installed on the host.
>>
>> 2. The S390_FEAT_AP_FACILITY_TEST feature indicates whether the AP
>>    Facility Test (APFT) facility is available to the guest as
>>    determined by whether the facility is available on the host.
>>    This feature will be exposed by KVM only if APFT is installed
>>    on the host.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <address@hidden>
>> Tested-by: Pierre Morel<address@hidden>
> 
> 
> Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <address@hidden>
> 
> and as you have moved the one hunk, Davids RB should still count.

Indeed

Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <address@hidden>


-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb