lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC 05/19] s390/zcrypt: base implementation of AP matrix device driver
From
Date
On 11/16/2017 11:47 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 09:25:27 -0500
> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/16/2017 07:35 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:02:26 +0100
>>> Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/11/2017 17:37, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>>>>> On 11/14/2017 07:40 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 13:38:50 -0400
>>>>>> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/Kconfig b/arch/s390/Kconfig
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> I think the more common pattern is to depend on the VFIO configs
>>>>>> instead of selecting them.
>>>>> It's ironic because I originally changed from using 'depends on' and
>>>>> changed it based on review comments made
>>>>> on our internal mailing list. I'll go with 'depends on'.
>>>> Is doing like the others a sufficient good reason?
>>>> 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?
>>> Using select for anything that's not a simple infrastructure dependency
>>> 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.]
>> Is it sufficient to specify 'depends on ZCRYPT && VFIO_MDEV_DEVICE'
>> since 'VFIO_MDEV_DEVICE depends on VFIO && VFIO_MDEV' and 'VFIO_MDEV
>> depends on VFIO' and 'VFIO depends on IOMMU_API'?
> Perhaps ZCRYPT && VFIO_MDEV && VFIO_MDEV_DEVICE, to make it a bit more
> obvious?
Sure, why not.
>
> [Also, is IOMMU_API only needed to satisfy dependencies?]
Yes, VFIO is dependent upon it.
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-17 22:14    [W:0.127 / U:7.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site