From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu-s390x] [PATCH-for-4.2 v1 5/9] s390x/mmu: Implement access-exception-fetch/store-indication facility
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 14:35:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6067a11e-4db3-043c-48cb-976a64221b4b@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <701fa06a-35e7-8903-5d07-125afb11938c@redhat.com>
On 19.08.19 14:30, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 8/19/19 2:26 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 19.08.19 14:22, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> On 8/19/19 2:16 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>> On 8/5/19 5:29 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> We always have to indicate whether it is a fetch or a store for all access
>>>>> exceptions. This is only missing for LAP exceptions.
>>>>
>>>> Do we really need this for LAP, too? If I get figure 3-5 "Enhanced
>>>> Suppression-on-Protection Results" right, these bits are not set for LAP
>>>> exceptions...? Do I miss something?
>>>
>>> I was looking at an older version of the PoP ... the table that I mean
>>> is "Figure 3-8. Enhanced Suppression-on-Protection Facility 2 Results"
>>> in SA22-7832-11.
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>
>> I think that table only states that if 56==60==61==0, then we might have
>> either KCP or LAP ("Presented if TEID details are not available" - but
>> as we have TEID information available, we can just set 56=1 and 60=61=0
>> (== LAP), or am I missing something?
>
> Oh, well, I was looking at the older version of the PoP first, and it
> was not specified there yet, and when I started looking the the new
> version, I only saw the first LAP line and stopped reading properly
> afterwards... of course you're right, there is another LAP line in the
> table where they say that the address is correclty specified.
>
> Please mentioned the "Enhanced Suppression-on-Protection
> Facility 2" (which introduced this new behavior) in the patch
> description to make this clear, then your patch is fine.
>
Ah, right, that comes in the next patch. Might make sense to reshuffle
both patches. Will have a look.
Thanks!
> Thomas
>
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-19 13:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-05 15:29 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH-for-4.2 v1 0/9] s390x: MMU changes and extensions David Hildenbrand
2019-08-05 15:29 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH-for-4.2 v1 1/9] s390x/mmu: Better ASC selection in s390_cpu_get_phys_page_debug() David Hildenbrand
2019-08-08 12:57 ` Cornelia Huck
2019-08-08 13:02 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-08-12 7:12 ` Thomas Huth
2019-08-12 7:52 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-08-12 13:40 ` Cornelia Huck
2019-08-12 13:45 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-08-12 13:58 ` Cornelia Huck
2019-08-12 14:14 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-08-05 15:29 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH-for-4.2 v1 2/9] s390x/tcg: Rework MMU selection for instruction fetches David Hildenbrand
2019-08-05 15:29 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH-for-4.2 v1 3/9] s390x/mmu: DAT translation rewrite David Hildenbrand
2019-08-12 7:20 ` Thomas Huth
2019-08-12 7:43 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-08-12 8:04 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-08-19 11:40 ` [Qemu-devel] [qemu-s390x] " Thomas Huth
2019-08-19 11:58 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-08-19 12:00 ` Thomas Huth
2019-08-05 15:29 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH-for-4.2 v1 4/9] s390x/mmu: Add EDAT2 translation support David Hildenbrand
2019-08-19 12:01 ` [Qemu-devel] [qemu-s390x] " Thomas Huth
2019-08-05 15:29 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH-for-4.2 v1 5/9] s390x/mmu: Implement access-exception-fetch/store-indication facility David Hildenbrand
2019-08-19 12:16 ` [Qemu-devel] [qemu-s390x] " Thomas Huth
2019-08-19 12:22 ` Thomas Huth
2019-08-19 12:26 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-08-19 12:30 ` Thomas Huth
2019-08-19 12:35 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2019-08-05 15:29 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH-for-4.2 v1 6/9] s390x/mmu: Implement enhanced suppression-on-protection facility 2 David Hildenbrand
2019-08-19 14:58 ` [Qemu-devel] [qemu-s390x] " Thomas Huth
2019-08-05 15:29 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH-for-4.2 v1 7/9] s390x/mmu: Implement Instruction-Execution-Protection Facility David Hildenbrand
2019-08-19 15:03 ` [Qemu-devel] [qemu-s390x] " Thomas Huth
2019-08-05 15:29 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH-for-4.2 v1 8/9] s390x/cpumodel: Prepare for changes of QEMU model David Hildenbrand
2019-08-13 16:02 ` Cornelia Huck
2019-08-19 15:07 ` [Qemu-devel] [qemu-s390x] " Thomas Huth
2019-08-05 15:29 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH-for-4.2 v1 9/9] s390x/cpumodel: Add new TCG features to QEMU cpu model David Hildenbrand
2019-08-13 16:07 ` Cornelia Huck
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=6067a11e-4db3-043c-48cb-976a64221b4b@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=iii@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=pasic@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-s390x@nongnu.org \
--cc=rth@twiddle.net \
--cc=thuth@redhat.com \
/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).