From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.61]:53331 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726376AbfKLQSB (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Nov 2019 11:18:01 -0500 Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 3/3] s390x: Load reset psw on diag308 reset References: <20191111153345.22505-1-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <20191111153345.22505-4-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <7683adc7-2cd0-1103-d231-8a1577f1e673@redhat.com> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:17:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Janosch Frank , David Hildenbrand , kvm@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org On 12/11/2019 14.42, Janosch Frank wrote: > On 11/12/19 1:09 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 11.11.19 16:33, Janosch Frank wrote: >>> On a diag308 subcode 0 CRs will be reset, so we need a PSW mask >>> without DAT. Also we need to set the short psw indication to be >>> compliant with the architecture. >>> >>> Let's therefore define a reset PSW mask with 64 bit addressing and >>> short PSW indication that is compliant with architecture and use it. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank >>> --- >>> lib/s390x/asm-offsets.c | 1 + >>> lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h | 3 ++- >>> s390x/cstart64.S | 24 +++++++++++++++++------- >>> 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/asm-offsets.c b/lib/s390x/asm-offsets.c >>> index 4b213f8..61d2658 100644 >>> --- a/lib/s390x/asm-offsets.c >>> +++ b/lib/s390x/asm-offsets.c >>> @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ int main(void) >>> =09OFFSET(GEN_LC_SW_INT_FPRS, lowcore, sw_int_fprs); >>> =09OFFSET(GEN_LC_SW_INT_FPC, lowcore, sw_int_fpc); >>> =09OFFSET(GEN_LC_SW_INT_CRS, lowcore, sw_int_crs); >>> +=09OFFSET(GEN_LC_SW_INT_PSW, lowcore, sw_int_psw); >>> =09OFFSET(GEN_LC_MCCK_EXT_SA_ADDR, lowcore, mcck_ext_sa_addr); >>> =09OFFSET(GEN_LC_FPRS_SA, lowcore, fprs_sa); >>> =09OFFSET(GEN_LC_GRS_SA, lowcore, grs_sa); >>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h b/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h >>> index 07d4e5e..7d25e4f 100644 >>> --- a/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h >>> +++ b/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h >>> @@ -79,7 +79,8 @@ struct lowcore { >>> =09uint32_t=09sw_int_fpc;=09=09=09/* 0x0300 */ >>> =09uint8_t=09=09pad_0x0304[0x0308 - 0x0304];=09/* 0x0304 */ >>> =09uint64_t=09sw_int_crs[16];=09=09=09/* 0x0308 */ >>> -=09uint8_t=09=09pad_0x0310[0x11b0 - 0x0388];=09/* 0x0388 */ >>> +=09struct psw=09sw_int_psw;=09=09=09/* 0x0388 */ >>> +=09uint8_t=09=09pad_0x0310[0x11b0 - 0x0390];=09/* 0x0390 */ >>> =09uint64_t=09mcck_ext_sa_addr;=09=09/* 0x11b0 */ >>> =09uint8_t=09=09pad_0x11b8[0x1200 - 0x11b8];=09/* 0x11b8 */ >>> =09uint64_t=09fprs_sa[16];=09=09=09/* 0x1200 */ [...] >> This patch breaks the smp test under TCG (no clue and no time to look >> into the details :) ): >=20 > I forgot to fixup the offset calculation at the top of the patch once > again... Maybe add a _Static_assert(sizeof(struct lowcore) =3D=3D xyz) after the struct definitions, to avoid that this happens again? Thomas