From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52994) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dprlV-0002Ld-FX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 04:02:27 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dprlQ-00075X-Fn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 04:02:21 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:52109 helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dprlQ-000752-9g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 04:02:16 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v877xSxp036836 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 04:02:15 -0400 Received: from e18.ny.us.ibm.com (e18.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.208]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2cu10wbaph-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 04:02:14 -0400 Received: from localhost by e18.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 04:02:13 -0400 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 16:02:08 +0800 From: Dong Jia Shi References: <20170830163609.50260-1-pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170830163609.50260-3-pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170831111953.242ddc28.cohuck@redhat.com> <20170905100234.7a92128e.cohuck@redhat.com> <20170905174606.1e0c6404.cohuck@redhat.com> <24e87c3e-2674-8fc1-cd0a-94f4907ddc7d@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170906082720.GZ31680@bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170906132538.73b31142.cohuck@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170906132538.73b31142.cohuck@redhat.com> Message-Id: <20170907080208.GE31680@bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/9] s390x: fix invalid use of cc 1 for SSCH List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Cornelia Huck Cc: Dong Jia Shi , Halil Pasic , Pierre Morel , qemu-devel@nongnu.org * Cornelia Huck [2017-09-06 13:25:38 +0200]: > On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 16:27:20 +0800 > Dong Jia Shi wrote: > > > * Halil Pasic [2017-09-05 19:20:43 +0200]: > > > > > > > > > > > On 09/05/2017 05:46 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > > On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 17:24:19 +0200 > > > > Halil Pasic wrote: > > > > > > > >> My problem with a program check (indicated by SCSW word 2 bit 10) is > > > >> that, in my reading of the architecture, the semantic behind it is: The > > > >> channel subsystem (not the cu or device) has detected, that the > > > >> the channel program (previously submitted as an ORB) is erroneous. Which > > > >> programs are erroneous is specified by the architecture. What we have > > > >> here does not qualify. > > > >> > > > >> My idea was to rather blame the virtual hardware (device) and put no blame > > > >> on the program nor he channel subsystem. This could be done using device > > > >> status (unit check with command reject, maybe unit exception) or interface > > > >> check. My train of thought was, the problem is not consistent across a > > > >> device type, so it has to be device specific. > > > > > > > > Unit exception might be a better way to express what is happening here. > > > > At least, it moves us away from cc 1 and not towards cc 3 :) > > > > > > > > > > I will do a follow up patch pursuing device exception. > > > > > > >> > > > >> Of course blaming the device could mislead the person encountering the > > > >> problem, and make him believe it's an non-virtual hardware problem. > > > >> > > > >> About the misleading, I think the best we can do is log out a message > > > >> indicating what really happened. > > > > > > > > Just document it in the code? If it doesn't happen with Linux as a > > > > guest, it is highly unlikely to be seen in the wild. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well we have two problems here: > > > 1) Unit exception can be already defined by the device type for the > > > command (reference: http://publibfp.dhe.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr/BOOKS/dz9ar110/2.6.10?DT=19920904110920). > > > I think this one is what you mean. And I agree that's best handled > > > with comment in code. > > Using unit check, with bit 3 byte 0 of the sense data set to 1, to > > indicate an 'Equipment check', sounds a bit more proper than unit > > exception. > > I don't agree: Equipment check sounds a lot more dire (and seems to > imply a malfunction). I like unit exception better. Got the point. Fair enough! -- Dong Jia Shi