Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/8] [PATCH RFC v3] s390-qemu: cpu hotplug - Define New SCLP Codes

["Jason J. Herne" <jjherne@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On 09/16/2013 10:43 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
> Am 16.09.2013 um 09:29 schrieb "Jason J. Herne" <jjherne@linux.vnet.ibm.com>:
>
>> On 09/16/2013 09:53 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>> On 05/09/13 13:25, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 01.08.2013, at 16:12, Jason J. Herne wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From: "Jason J. Herne" <jjherne@us.ibm.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Define new SCLP codes to improve code readability.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason J. Herne <jjherne@us.ibm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> hw/s390x/sclp.c         |    2 +-
>>>>> include/hw/s390x/sclp.h |    8 ++++++++
>>>>> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/sclp.c b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
>>>>> index 86d6ae0..cb53d7e 100644
>>>>> --- a/hw/s390x/sclp.c
>>>>> +++ b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
>>>>> @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ static void sclp_execute(SCCB *sccb, uint64_t code)
>>>>> {
>>>>>      S390SCLPDevice *sdev = get_event_facility();
>>>>>
>>>>> -    switch (code) {
>>>>> +    switch (code & SCLP_NO_CMD_PARM) {
>>>>
>>>> switch (code & ~SCLP_CMD_PARM)
>>>>
>>>> Or are the upper bits parm as well? In fact, what about the upper 32 bits?
>>>
>>> As of now those are ignored by the sclp. So (code & SCLP_NO_CMD_PARM) seems
>>> better to me.
>>
>> What if I rename it to SCLP_CMD_CODE_MASK?  This removes the negative from the name and keeps the same semantics.
>
> Does the mask include payload information as well or only the cmd code?
>

It contains all elements of the command code and nothing more.

>
>>
>> --
>> -- Jason J. Herne (jjherne@linux.vnet.ibm.com)
>>
>
>
>


-- 
-- Jason J. Herne (jjherne@linux.vnet.ibm.com)