From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.61]:48972 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729054AbgDWPkC (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Apr 2020 11:40:02 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] s390x: smp: Test all CRs on initial reset References: <20200423091013.11587-1-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <20200423091013.11587-2-frankja@linux.ibm.com> From: David Hildenbrand Message-ID: <2ebdf5d6-74ac-d9e5-d329-29611a5f87cd@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 17:39:53 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200423091013.11587-2-frankja@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Janosch Frank , kvm@vger.kernel.org Cc: thuth@redhat.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, cohuck@redhat.com On 23.04.20 11:10, Janosch Frank wrote: > All CRs are set to 0 and CRs 0 and 14 are set to pre-defined values, > so we also need to test 1-13 and 15 for 0. > > And while we're at it, let's also set some values to cr 1, 7 and 13, so > we can actually be sure that they will be zeroed. > > Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank > Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck > Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger > --- > s390x/smp.c | 16 +++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/s390x/smp.c b/s390x/smp.c > index fa40753..8c9b98a 100644 > --- a/s390x/smp.c > +++ b/s390x/smp.c > @@ -182,16 +182,28 @@ static void test_emcall(void) > report_prefix_pop(); > } > > +/* Used to dirty registers of cpu #1 before it is reset */ > +static void test_func_initial(void) > +{ > + lctlg(1, 0x42000UL); > + lctlg(7, 0x43000UL); > + lctlg(13, 0x44000UL); > + set_flag(1); > +} > + > static void test_reset_initial(void) > { > struct cpu_status *status = alloc_pages(0); > + uint64_t nullp[12] = {}; static const uint64_t nullp[12]; ? but see below > struct psw psw; > > psw.mask = extract_psw_mask(); > - psw.addr = (unsigned long)test_func; > + psw.addr = (unsigned long)test_func_initial; > > report_prefix_push("reset initial"); > + set_flag(0); > smp_cpu_start(1, psw); > + wait_for_flag(); > > sigp_retry(1, SIGP_INITIAL_CPU_RESET, 0, NULL); > sigp(1, SIGP_STORE_STATUS_AT_ADDRESS, (uintptr_t)status, NULL); > @@ -202,6 +214,8 @@ static void test_reset_initial(void) > report(!status->fpc, "fpc"); > report(!status->cputm, "cpu timer"); > report(!status->todpr, "todpr"); > + report(!memcmp(&status->crs[1], nullp, sizeof(status->crs[1]) * 12), "cr1-13 == 0"); sizeof(nullp) ? > + report(status->crs[15] == 0, "cr15 == 0"); I'd actually prefer a simple loop for (i = 1; i <= 13; i++) { report(status->crs[i] == 0, "cr%d == 0", i); } report(status->crs[15] == 0, "cr15 == 0"); > report_prefix_pop(); > > report_prefix_push("initialized"); > Apart from that looks good to me. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb