Re: [PATCH v1] s390/vfio-ap: GISA: sort out physical vs virtual pointers usage

[Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>]

On 11/8/22 16:26, Nico Boehr wrote:
> Fix virtual vs physical address confusion (which currently are the same)
> for the GISA when enabling the IRQ.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nico Boehr <nrb@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>   drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
> index 0b4cc8c597ae..20859cabbced 100644
> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
> @@ -429,7 +429,7 @@ static struct ap_queue_status vfio_ap_irq_enable(struct vfio_ap_queue *q,
>   
>   	aqic_gisa.isc = nisc;
>   	aqic_gisa.ir = 1;
> -	aqic_gisa.gisa = (uint64_t)gisa >> 4;
> +	aqic_gisa.gisa = (uint64_t)virt_to_phys(gisa) >> 4;

I'd suggest doing s/uint64_t/u64/ or s/uint64_t/unsigned long/ but I'm 
wondering if (u32)(u64) would be more appropriate anyway.

@halil @christian ?

>   
>   	status = ap_aqic(q->apqn, aqic_gisa, h_nib);
>   	switch (status.response_code) {