Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] pc-bios: s390x: Rename and use PSW_MASK_ZMODE constant

[Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>]

On 21/05/2020 07.44, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 14/05/2020 14.37, Janosch Frank wrote:
>> ZMODE has a lot of ambiguity with the ESAME architecture mode, but is
>> actually 64 bit addressing.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
>> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  pc-bios/s390-ccw/dasd-ipl.c  | 3 +--
>>  pc-bios/s390-ccw/s390-arch.h | 2 +-
>>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/dasd-ipl.c b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/dasd-ipl.c
>> index 0fc879bb8e..b932531e6f 100644
>> --- a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/dasd-ipl.c
>> +++ b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/dasd-ipl.c
>> @@ -229,7 +229,6 @@ void dasd_ipl(SubChannelId schid, uint16_t cutype)
>>      run_ipl2(schid, cutype, ipl2_addr);
>>  
>>      /* Transfer control to the guest operating system */
>> -    pswl->mask |= PSW_MASK_EAMODE;   /* Force z-mode */
>> -    pswl->addr |= PSW_MASK_BAMODE;   /* ...          */
>> +    pswl->mask |= PSW_MASK_64;   /* Force 64 bit addressing */
> 
> This is not only a rename (as announced in the subject), but also a
> change in behavior since you now do not change pswl->addr anymore. So
> this is even a bug fix? Could you please mention this in the patch
> description, too?

Ah, wait, pswl is of type PSWLegacy, and ->mask and ->addr are of type
uint32_t here! So it seems wrong to use a 64-bit value for mask here,
doesn't it?

 Thomas