From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cornelia Huck Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] s390: ap: kvm: add PQAP interception for AQIC Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 13:36:09 +0100 Message-ID: <20190301133609.3ee469dc.cohuck@redhat.com> References: <1550849400-27152-1-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <1550849400-27152-2-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <9f1d9241-39b9-adbc-d0e9-cb702e609cbc@linux.ibm.com> <4dc59125-7f96-cba8-651b-382ed8f8bff8@linux.ibm.com> <8526f468-9a4d-68d2-3868-0dad5ce16f46@linux.ibm.com> <6058a017-6404-af3c-62ef-2452214ac97c@de.ibm.com> <2391adc2-6611-034c-61c5-feb46e2a751b@de.ibm.com> <20190228122251.75b31f62.cohuck@redhat.com> <20190228145254.2909425e.cohuck@redhat.com> <261a1e22-3703-21a4-e33d-e737651e7d89@linux.ibm.com> <3fedbde5-ef83-c67e-6352-fd492f258009@linux.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: pmorel@linux.ibm.com, Tony Krowiak , alex.williamson@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, frankja@linux.ibm.com, pasic@linux.ibm.com, david@redhat.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, freude@linux.ibm.com, mimu@linux.ibm.com To: Christian Borntraeger Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 13:05:54 +0100 Christian Borntraeger wrote: > On 01.03.2019 13:03, Pierre Morel wrote: > > On 28/02/2019 15:14, Pierre Morel wrote: > >> On 28/02/2019 14:52, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:16:09 +0100 > >>> Pierre Morel wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 28/02/2019 12:22, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >>> > >>>>> So, to summarize, the function should do: > >>>>> - Is userspace supposed to emulate everything (!ECA_APIE)? Return > >>>>>     -EOPNOTSUPP to hand control to it. > >>>>> - We are now interpreting the instruction in KVM. Do common checks > >>>>>     (PSTATE etc.) and inject exceptions, if needed. > >>>>> - Now look at the fc; if there's a handler for it, call that; if not > >>>>>     (case does not attempt to call a specific handler, or no handler > >>>>>     registered), inject a specification exception. (Do we want pre-checks > >>>>>     like for facility 65 here, or in the handler?) > >>>>> > >>>>> That response code 0x01 thingy probably needs to go into the specific > >>>>> handler function, if anywhere (don't know the semantics, sorry). > >>>> > >>>> What do you mean with specific handler function? > >>>> > >>>> If you mean a switch around the FC with static function's call, I agree, > >>>> if you mean a jump into a hook I do not agree. > >>> > >>> Ah, ok; so each case (that we want to handle) should call into a > >>> subhandler that does > >>> { > >>>     (... check things like facilities ...) > >>>     if (!specific_hook) > >>>         inject_specif_excp_and_return(); > >>>     ret = specific_hook(); > >>>     if (ret) > >>>         set_resp_code_0x01(); // or in specific_hook()? > >>> } > >>> > >>> ? > >> > >> Yes something in this direction. > > > > Sorry, after reflection, no, we do not want to change the previous behavior so we only handle the AQIC case. > > I think what you wanted to say is the following: > Today (without the patch set) we will answer PQAP with an exception. > With this patch set we want to handle FC==3, but nothing else. So for anything FC!=3 we > will continue to return an exception? > > Correct? > That sounds reasonable; but I don't see how this conflicts with my proposal? Just don't introduce a subfunction for fc != 3...