Re: [PATCH 10/12] target/s390x: Fill in TCGCPUOps.pointer_wrap

[Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>]

On 5/5/25 07:41, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 4/5/25 22:57, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> Use the existing wrap_address function.
>>
>> Cc: qemu-s390x@nongnu.org
>> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>   target/s390x/cpu.c | 9 +++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/target/s390x/cpu.c b/target/s390x/cpu.c
>> index 9c1158ebcc..f05ce317da 100644
>> --- a/target/s390x/cpu.c
>> +++ b/target/s390x/cpu.c
>> @@ -347,6 +347,14 @@ static TCGTBCPUState s390x_get_tb_cpu_state(CPUState *cs)
>>       };
>>   }
>> +#ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY
>> +static vaddr s390_pointer_wrap(CPUState *cs, int mmu_idx,
>> +                               vaddr result, vaddr base)
>> +{
>> +    return wrap_address(cpu_env(cs), result);
>> +}
>> +#endif
>> +
>>   static const TCGCPUOps s390_tcg_ops = {
>>       .mttcg_supported = true,
>>       .precise_smc = true,
>> @@ -367,6 +375,7 @@ static const TCGCPUOps s390_tcg_ops = {
>>       .record_sigbus = s390_cpu_record_sigbus,
>>   #else
>>       .tlb_fill = s390_cpu_tlb_fill,
>> +    .pointer_wrap = s390_pointer_wrap,
> 
> As future cleanup, we might now remove the wrap_address() calls
> in target/s390x/tcg/crypto_helper.c, and target/s390x/tcg/vec_helper.c,
> is that correct?
> 
> Also some uses in target/s390x/tcg/mem_helper.c.

No, not correct.

The new pointer_wrap hook is only used for unaligned accesses that cross page boundaries. 
It does not apply to a sequence of individual accesses like we have in the s390x helpers.


r~