Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] Documentation: KVM: s390: Describe KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CMPXCHG

Nico Boehr
2022-11-25T08:52:34Z

Quoting Janis Schoetterl-Glausch (2022-11-22 14:10:41)
> On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 08:47 +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > On 17/11/2022 23.17, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
[...]
> > > Supported flags:
> > > * ``KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY``
> > > * ``KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_SKEY_PROTECTION``
> > > + * ``KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CMPXCHG``
> > > +
> > > +The semantics of the flags common with logical acesses are as for logical
> > > +accesses.
> > > +
> > > +For write accesses, the KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CMPXCHG might be supported.
> >
> > I'd maybe merge this with the last sentence:
> >
> > For write accesses, the KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CMPXCHG flag is supported if
> > KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP_EXTENSION has bit 1 (i.e. bit with value 2) set.
>
> Ok.
> >
> > ... and speaking of that, I wonder whether it's maybe a good idea to
> > introduce some #defines for bit 1 / value 2, to avoid the confusion ?
>
> Not sure, I don't feel it's too complicated. Where would you define it?
> Next to the mem_op struct? KVM_S390_MEMOP_EXTENSION_CAP_CMPXCHG?

I think the define would be a good idea. Location and name sound good to me.

You could also replace the hard-coded 0x3 in kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension() when you have the define.