From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87C03C433DF for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 13:52:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 611B120708 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 13:52:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="jQxgdAN8" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728009AbgGINwx (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jul 2020 09:52:53 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.61]:43557 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726660AbgGINwx (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jul 2020 09:52:53 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1594302771; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=m8T8d3nQCdpNtJbFpcM3rtQtW7hcpJdL6jTbEaAECEc=; b=jQxgdAN8S5VWbMZ+L/iffQDSSHHTzAZFWZ5RJPtuz890alGXaO9AuKuwoJI6fBzH97WODf 1WJ/myXm8VV3nS0djffDFdhVJQo2RRZaBCOQLF/MkQTVJnEj492XW3J9mo2UEUGsERfmGL 6E5Puc6wCkFVxe+Q5AJufy5ehO1NzTc= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-454-Oa1yzLjqOQujKtdEAvBjBg-1; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 09:52:49 -0400 X-MC-Unique: Oa1yzLjqOQujKtdEAvBjBg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF358E919; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 13:52:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gondolin (ovpn-113-62.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.113.62]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 598CC2B6FF; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 13:52:44 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 15:52:41 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck To: Pierre Morel Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, frankja@linux.ibm.com, david@redhat.com, thuth@redhat.com, drjones@redhat.com Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v11 8/9] s390x: css: msch, enable test Message-ID: <20200709155241.3014e3d6.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4f861a9c-179b-5376-5f0f-dce30f31da71@linux.ibm.com> References: <1594282068-11054-1-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <1594282068-11054-9-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <20200709134056.0d267b6c.cohuck@redhat.com> <20200709153055.6f2b5e59.cohuck@redhat.com> <4f861a9c-179b-5376-5f0f-dce30f31da71@linux.ibm.com> Organization: Red Hat GmbH MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 15:41:56 +0200 Pierre Morel wrote: > On 2020-07-09 15:30, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 15:12:05 +0200 > > Pierre Morel wrote: > > > >> On 2020-07-09 13:40, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >>> On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 10:07:47 +0200 > >>> Pierre Morel wrote: > >>> > >>>> A second step when testing the channel subsystem is to prepare a channel > >>>> for use. > >>>> This includes: > >>>> - Get the current subchannel Information Block (SCHIB) using STSCH > >>>> - Update it in memory to set the ENABLE bit and the specified ISC > >>>> - Tell the CSS that the SCHIB has been modified using MSCH > >>>> - Get the SCHIB from the CSS again to verify that the subchannel is > >>>> enabled and uses the specified ISC. > >>>> - If the command succeeds but subchannel is not enabled or the ISC > >>>> field is not as expected, retry a predefined retries count. > >>>> - If the command fails, report the failure and do not retry, even > >>>> if cc indicates a busy/status pending as we do not expect this. > >>>> > >>>> This tests the MSCH instruction to enable a channel successfully. > >>>> Retries are done and in case of error, and if the retries count > >>>> is exceeded, a report is made. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel > >>>> Acked-by: Thomas Huth > >>>> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck > >>>> --- > >>>> lib/s390x/css.h | 8 +++-- > >>>> lib/s390x/css_lib.c | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>>> s390x/css.c | 15 ++++++++++ > >>>> 3 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> (...) > >>> > >>>> +/* > >>>> + * css_msch: enable subchannel and set with specified ISC > >>> > >>> "css_enable: enable the subchannel with the specified ISC" > >>> > >>> ? > >>> > >>>> + * @schid: Subchannel Identifier > >>>> + * @isc : number of the interruption subclass to use > >>>> + * Return value: > >>>> + * On success: 0 > >>>> + * On error the CC of the faulty instruction > >>>> + * or -1 if the retry count is exceeded. > >>>> + */ > >>>> +int css_enable(int schid, int isc) > >>>> +{ > >>>> + struct pmcw *pmcw = &schib.pmcw; > >>>> + int retry_count = 0; > >>>> + uint16_t flags; > >>>> + int cc; > >>>> + > >>>> + /* Read the SCHIB for this subchannel */ > >>>> + cc = stsch(schid, &schib); > >>>> + if (cc) { > >>>> + report_info("stsch: sch %08x failed with cc=%d", schid, cc); > >>>> + return cc; > >>>> + } > >>>> + > >>>> + flags = PMCW_ENABLE | (isc << PMCW_ISC_SHIFT); > >>>> + if ((pmcw->flags & flags) == flags) { > >>> > >>> I think you want (pmcw->flags & PMCW_ENABLE) == PMCW_ENABLE -- this > >>> catches the case of "subchannel has been enabled before, but with a > >>> different isc". > >> > >> If with a different ISC, we need to modify the ISC. > >> Don't we ? > > > > I think that's a policy decision (I would probably fail and require a > > disable before setting another isc, but that's a matter of taste). > > > > Regardless, I think the current check doesn't even catch the 'different > > isc' case? > > hum, right. > If it is OK I remove this one. > And I must rework the same test I do later > in this patch. So, you mean checking for PMCW_ENABLE? Or not at all? (I'd check for PMCW_ENABLE.)