From: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
To: "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
qemu-s390x@nongnu.org,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>,
Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>,
Eric Farman <farman@linux.ibm.com>,
Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>,
Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] target/s390x: Replace legacy cpu_physical_memory_read/write() calls
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2025 16:04:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9052ebc9-190c-48e2-bc4f-a4339e7692a9@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251002091132.65703-4-philmd@linaro.org>
On 02/10/2025 11.11, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> cpu_physical_memory_read() and cpu_physical_memory_write() are
> legacy (see commit b7ecba0f6f6), replace by address_space_read()
> and address_space_write() respectively.
I'm not sure whether this patch is a good idea in the current way it is done.
Commit b7ecba0f6f6 says: "there is likely to be behaviour you need to model
correctly for a failed read or write operation" ... so if we switch to the
address_space_* API, I think you should also implement the correct handling
for the case where the memory transaction failed. Otherwise this is more or
less just code churn, isn't it?
Thomas
> diff --git a/target/s390x/diag.c b/target/s390x/diag.c
> index c2fedc55213..737c3bbc5be 100644
> --- a/target/s390x/diag.c
> +++ b/target/s390x/diag.c
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
> #include "s390x-internal.h"
> #include "hw/watchdog/wdt_diag288.h"
> #include "system/cpus.h"
> +#include "system/memory.h"
> #include "hw/s390x/ipl.h"
> #include "hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.h"
> #include "system/kvm.h"
> @@ -82,11 +83,14 @@ static bool diag_iplb_read(IplParameterBlock *iplb, S390CPU *cpu, uint64_t addr)
> }
> s390_cpu_pv_mem_read(cpu, 0, iplb, be32_to_cpu(iplb->len));
> } else {
> - cpu_physical_memory_read(addr, iplb, sizeof(iplb->len));
> + const MemTxAttrs attrs = MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED;
> + AddressSpace *as = CPU(cpu)->as;
> +
> + address_space_read(as, addr, attrs, iplb, sizeof(iplb->len));
> if (!iplb_valid_len(iplb)) {
> return false;
> }
> - cpu_physical_memory_read(addr, iplb, be32_to_cpu(iplb->len));
> + address_space_read(as, addr, attrs, iplb, be32_to_cpu(iplb->len));
> }
> return true;
> }
> @@ -98,7 +102,10 @@ static void diag_iplb_write(IplParameterBlock *iplb, S390CPU *cpu, uint64_t addr
> if (s390_is_pv()) {
> s390_cpu_pv_mem_write(cpu, 0, iplb, iplb_len);
> } else {
> - cpu_physical_memory_write(addr, iplb, iplb_len);
> + const MemTxAttrs attrs = MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED;
> + AddressSpace *as = CPU(cpu)->as;
> +
> + address_space_write(as, addr, attrs, iplb, iplb_len);
> }
> }
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-06 14:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-02 9:11 [PATCH 0/9] target/s390x: Remove legacy cpu_physical_memory_*() calls Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2025-10-02 9:11 ` [PATCH 1/9] target/s390x: Factor diag_iplb_write() out Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2025-10-06 13:55 ` Thomas Huth
2025-10-02 9:11 ` [PATCH 2/9] target/s390x: Factor diag_iplb_read() out Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2025-10-06 13:57 ` Thomas Huth
2025-10-02 9:11 ` [PATCH 3/9] target/s390x: Replace legacy cpu_physical_memory_read/write() calls Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2025-10-06 14:04 ` Thomas Huth [this message]
2025-10-06 14:44 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2025-10-02 9:11 ` [PATCH 4/9] target/s390x: Replace legacy cpu_physical_memory_[un]map() calls (1/3) Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2025-10-02 9:11 ` [PATCH 5/9] target/s390x: Propagate CPUS390XState to cpu_unmap_lowcore() Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2025-10-06 14:08 ` Thomas Huth
2025-10-02 9:11 ` [PATCH 6/9] target/s390x: Replace legacy cpu_physical_memory_[un]map() calls (2/3) Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2025-10-06 14:09 ` Thomas Huth
2025-10-02 9:11 ` [PATCH 7/9] target/s390x: Reduce s390_store_adtl_status() scope Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2025-10-06 14:11 ` Thomas Huth
2025-10-02 9:11 ` [PATCH 8/9] target/s390x: Reduce s390_store_status() scope Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2025-10-06 14:16 ` Thomas Huth
2025-10-02 9:11 ` [PATCH 9/9] target/s390x: Replace legacy cpu_physical_memory_[un]map() calls (3/3) Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=9052ebc9-190c-48e2-bc4f-a4339e7692a9@redhat.com \
--to=thuth@redhat.com \
--cc=borntraeger@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=farman@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=iii@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=mjrosato@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=pasic@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=philmd@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-s390x@nongnu.org \
--cc=richard.henderson@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).