From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 313DCC433F5 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2021 17:14:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:50498 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1myGoF-0005tV-VS for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 17 Dec 2021 12:14:19 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:53454) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1myGmv-0005Aj-LV; Fri, 17 Dec 2021 12:12:57 -0500 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:1546) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1myGmp-0005Ag-3i; Fri, 17 Dec 2021 12:12:57 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1BHEqgUf025209; Fri, 17 Dec 2021 17:12:48 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=SdGCRocUc7LYVuGZXW+rcUnZUCp9dY5PzU9eRkbT/7Q=; b=IHSPjjQj8FVOlMPd3trqHrCtqUGboWnVXferK2bSNkl7GzqlIPkDFCAH2ZKMv8kvBUlz Ye2iOpCsxvs0O0JD5jTmXH+/CivTkFR16R3YIBv1GP784xqNJouwptTeUy9wQwBwPAwZ pyGOTnWB5lq9KxWd2ZJzFGqXYqgE0FI590eT1gQlYGobq2BHTmdPKV9ENtkxkE6xsL0/ nt6Xtuy0/LqEXSMYRCYcr2ZajOC1UNWoV04cVXJSLtReZgEpIjkO6D4kyACdTLYskmd8 QpX/4BR7ym0Qk/OZzWrRJXqesOZ7UcSJopSrZBzfTp1TysFAZIxFzOtP8D5pmaeH1Yek /Q== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3cypc7trvc-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Dec 2021 17:12:48 +0000 Received: from m0098421.ppops.net (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 1BHGpw93000712; Fri, 17 Dec 2021 17:12:47 GMT Received: from ppma01fra.de.ibm.com (46.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.70]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3cypc7trur-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Dec 2021 17:12:47 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma01fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma01fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1BHGf3uE023185; Fri, 17 Dec 2021 17:12:45 GMT Received: from b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.26.194]) by ppma01fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3cy7k3td8j-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Dec 2021 17:12:45 +0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 1BHHCgF646924046 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 17 Dec 2021 17:12:42 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D15A11C04A; Fri, 17 Dec 2021 17:12:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C534511C04C; Fri, 17 Dec 2021 17:12:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.171.25.249] (unknown [9.171.25.249]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Dec 2021 17:12:41 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <7143886b-ffa2-e5f7-e7fe-b06212522824@linux.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2021 18:13:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH qemu] s390x/css: fix PMCW invalid mask Content-Language: en-US To: Halil Pasic , Nico Boehr References: <20211216131657.1057978-1-nrb@linux.ibm.com> <20211217145811.71dd0a70.pasic@linux.ibm.com> From: Pierre Morel In-Reply-To: <20211217145811.71dd0a70.pasic@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: oJainPnTDSpz5LUcq847V4ZjGRnyHWbd X-Proofpoint-GUID: r3DQAOCR23dqnomp9bc8Z-E1OOiHlbZJ X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.790,Hydra:6.0.425,FMLib:17.11.62.513 definitions=2021-12-17_06,2021-12-16_01,2021-12-02_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1015 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2110150000 definitions=main-2112170095 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=148.163.158.5; envelope-from=pmorel@linux.ibm.com; helo=mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com X-Spam_score_int: -36 X-Spam_score: -3.7 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.716, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: thuth@redhat.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com, cohuck@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 12/17/21 14:58, Halil Pasic wrote: > On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 14:16:57 +0100 > Nico Boehr wrote: > >> Previously, we required bits 5, 6 and 7 to be zero (0x07 == 0b111). But, >> as per the principles of operation, bit 5 is ignored in MSCH and bits 0, >> 1, 6 and 7 need to be zero. > > On a second thought, don't we have to make sure then that bit 5 is > ignored? > > static void copy_pmcw_from_guest(PMCW *dest, const PMCW *src) > { > int i; > > dest->intparm = be32_to_cpu(src->intparm); > dest->flags = be16_to_cpu(src->flags); > dest->devno = be16_to_cpu(src->devno); > > Here we seem to grab flags as a whole, but actually we would have to > mask of bit 5. Why? If this bit is ignored by the machine shouldn't we just ignore it? Forcing it to 0 or to 1 is purely arbitrary no? > > I can spin a patch myself, provided we agree on that this needs to be > fixed, but, it would probably be better to have the two changes in one > patch. > > Regards, > Halil > > >> >> As both PMCW_FLAGS_MASK_INVALID and ioinst_schib_valid() are only used >> by ioinst_handle_msch(), adjust the mask accordingly. >> >> Fixes: db1c8f53bfb1 ("s390: Channel I/O basic definitions.") >> Signed-off-by: Nico Boehr >> Reviewed-by: Pierre Morel >> Reviewed-by: Halil Pasic >> Reviewed-by: Janosch Frank -- Pierre Morel IBM Lab Boeblingen