在 2017/7/19 下午5:24, Cornelia Huck 写道:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 16:56:18 +0800
Yi Min Zhao <zyi...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
在 2017/7/19 下午4:00, Cornelia Huck 写道:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 21:56:26 +0200
Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> wrote:
On 07/18/2017 04:24 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
Only set the zpci and aen feature bits on builds that actually
support pci.
Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com>
---
target/s390x/kvm.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/target/s390x/kvm.c b/target/s390x/kvm.c
index 831492f9a2..880eccd58a 100644
--- a/target/s390x/kvm.c
+++ b/target/s390x/kvm.c
@@ -2685,8 +2685,10 @@ void kvm_s390_get_host_cpu_model(S390CPUModel *model,
Error **errp)
}
/* set zpci and aen facilities */
+#ifdef CONFIG_PCI
set_bit(S390_FEAT_ZPCI, model->features);
set_bit(S390_FEAT_ADAPTER_EVENT_NOTIFICATION, model->features);
+#endif
if (s390_known_cpu_type(cpu_type)) {
/* we want the exact model, even if some features are missing */
Not strictly necessary but do you also want to ifdef this
kvm_vm_enable_cap(s, KVM_CAP_S390_AIS, 0);
call?
If not you could actually even allow AEN but not PCI for !CONFIG_PCI.
I'm a bit unsure about the relationship of ais and aen with pci. I
remember that only adapters for pci currently support suppression,
although it could spread to other adapter types in the future. Not sure
about aen.
So I'd keep the ais enablement call, even though it won't have much of
an effect as no pci adapters will be registered.
As I don't quite remember what aen governed, I need to rely on your
feedback here.
My understanding is that zpci replies on aen. But aen could exist
independently.
After all, there is other device type using aen. I think only wrapping
zpci is
enough.
Ah, was aen the indicator bits related support? If yes, I agree that we
should only turn off zpci.
Yes, set summary and indicator bits. Related stuff is in flic, but not
in zpci.