Re: [PATCH v9 04/22] s390/zcrypt: Integrate ap_asm.h into include/asm/ap.h.

Tony Krowiak
2018-08-17T19:09:17Z

On 08/17/2018 09:27 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 09:18:51 -0400
> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08/14/2018 04:43 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 17:48:01 -0400
>>> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Harald Freudenberger <freude@de.ibm.com>
>>>>
>>>> Move all the inline functions from the ap bus header
>>>> file ap_asm.h into the in-kernel api header file
>>>> arch/s390/include/asm/ap.h so that KVM can make use
>>>> of all the low level AP functions.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Harald Freudenberger <freude@de.ibm.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/s390/include/asm/ap.h | 284 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>>> drivers/s390/crypto/ap_bus.c | 23 +---
>>>> drivers/s390/crypto/ap_bus.h | 1 +
>>>> drivers/s390/crypto/ap_card.c | 1 -
>>>> drivers/s390/crypto/ap_queue.c | 1 -
>>>> 5 files changed, 260 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/ap.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/ap.h
>>>> index c1bedb4..887494a 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/ap.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/ap.h
>>>> @@ -47,6 +47,50 @@ struct ap_queue_status {
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> /**
>>>> + * ap_intructions_available() - Test if AP instructions are available.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Returns 1 if the AP instructions are installed, otherwise 0.
>>>> + */
>>>> +static inline int ap_instructions_available(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> + register unsigned long reg0 asm ("0") = AP_MKQID(0, 0);
>>>> + register unsigned long reg1 asm ("1") = 0;
>>>> + register unsigned long reg2 asm ("2") = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + asm volatile(
>>>> + " .long 0xb2af0000\n" /* PQAP(TAPQ) */
>>>> + "0: la %0,1\n"
>>>> + "1:\n"
>>>> + EX_TABLE(0b, 1b)
>>>> + : "+d" (reg1), "+d" (reg2)
>>>> + : "d" (reg0)
>>>> + : "cc");
>>>> + return reg1;
>>>> +}
>>> I think upstream this change (have this function return !0 when the
>>> instructions are installed) will be an addon patch to the one which has
>>> already made its way into master. Not really relevant for the remainder
>>> of this patch series, though.
>> I noticed that Harald's patches showed up in our master branch yesterday
>> without this change.
> Yep, but the s390/features branch has the patch changing the return
> code. Maybe just wait for the next s390 pull request before you
> rebase :)

Too late. I didn't notice until after the rebase, so I created a patch
on top of master to fix it. I will remove that fixup patch when
the latest appears in our master branch.

>