From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:35099 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726548AbgLQPi2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Dec 2020 10:38:28 -0500 Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 7/8] s390x: Add diag318 intercept test References: <20201211100039.63597-1-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <20201211100039.63597-8-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <4f689585-ae2e-4632-9055-f2332d9f7751@redhat.com> <44d6ac32-f7ac-6b33-ea9e-e037f936a181@de.ibm.com> <24e9883c-22d5-de4f-0001-d271855d7ea3@redhat.com> <23af5bca-dd2c-43bd-b2b4-6c7e2031517f@linux.ibm.com> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 16:36:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-ID: To: Janosch Frank , Christian Borntraeger , kvm@vger.kernel.org Cc: david@redhat.com, imbrenda@linux.ibm.com, cohuck@redhat.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org On 17/12/2020 16.31, Janosch Frank wrote: > On 12/17/20 3:31 PM, Janosch Frank wrote: >> On 12/17/20 11:34 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> On 17/12/2020 10.59, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 17.12.20 10:53, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>>> On 11/12/2020 11.00, Janosch Frank wrote: >>>>>> Not much to test except for the privilege and specification >>>>>> exceptions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth >>>>>> --- >>>>>> lib/s390x/sclp.c | 2 ++ >>>>>> lib/s390x/sclp.h | 6 +++++- >>>>>> s390x/intercept.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>> 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/sclp.c b/lib/s390x/sclp.c >>>>>> index cf6ea7c..0001993 100644 >>>>>> --- a/lib/s390x/sclp.c >>>>>> +++ b/lib/s390x/sclp.c >>>>>> @@ -138,6 +138,8 @@ void sclp_facilities_setup(void) >>>>>> >>>>>> assert(read_info); >>>>>> >>>>>> + sclp_facilities.has_diag318 = read_info->byte_134_diag318; >>>>>> + >>>>>> cpu = (void *)read_info + read_info->offset_cpu; >>>>>> for (i = 0; i < read_info->entries_cpu; i++, cpu++) { >>>>>> if (cpu->address == cpu0_addr) { >>>>>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/sclp.h b/lib/s390x/sclp.h >>>>>> index 6c86037..58f8e54 100644 >>>>>> --- a/lib/s390x/sclp.h >>>>>> +++ b/lib/s390x/sclp.h >>>>>> @@ -105,7 +105,8 @@ extern struct sclp_facilities sclp_facilities; >>>>>> >>>>>> struct sclp_facilities { >>>>>> uint64_t has_sief2 : 1; >>>>>> - uint64_t : 63; >>>>>> + uint64_t has_diag318 : 1; >>>>>> + uint64_t : 62; >>>>>> }; >>>>>> >>>>>> typedef struct ReadInfo { >>>>>> @@ -130,6 +131,9 @@ typedef struct ReadInfo { >>>>>> uint16_t highest_cpu; >>>>>> uint8_t _reserved5[124 - 122]; /* 122-123 */ >>>>>> uint32_t hmfai; >>>>>> + uint8_t reserved7[134 - 128]; >>>>>> + uint8_t byte_134_diag318 : 1; >>>>>> + uint8_t : 7; >>>>>> struct CPUEntry entries[0]; >>>>> >>>>> ... the entries[] array can be moved around here without any further ado? >>>>> Looks confusing to me. Should there be a CPUEntry array here at all, or only >>>>> in ReadCpuInfo? >>>> >>>> there is offset_cpu for the cpu entries at the beginning of the structure. >>> >>> Ah, thanks, right, this was used earlier in the patch series, now I >>> remember. But I think the "struct CPUEntry entries[0]" here is rather >>> confusing, since there is no guarantee that the entries are really at this >>> location ... I think this line should rather be replaced by a comment saying >>> that offset_cpu should be used instead. >> >> Sure, as long as it's clear that there's something at the end, I'm fine >> with it. > > I would add that to the "fix style issues" patch or into an own patch. > Any preferences? I think a separate patch is cleaner. > - struct CPUEntry entries[0]; > + /* > + * The cpu entries follow, they start at the offset specified > + * in offset_cpu. > + */ Sounds good, thanks! Thomas