From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:52846 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728792AbgAMQRY (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:17:24 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 00DGD7F1092072 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:17:23 -0500 Received: from e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.101]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2xfvvatwrn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:17:22 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 16:17:20 -0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 17:17:15 +0100 From: Claudio Imbrenda Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v7 4/4] s390x: SCLP unit test In-Reply-To: <9f0bee07-28bc-8154-3c67-402c82da8f89@redhat.com> References: <20200110184050.191506-1-imbrenda@linux.ibm.com> <20200110184050.191506-5-imbrenda@linux.ibm.com> <8d7fb5c4-9e2c-e28a-16c0-658afcc8178d@redhat.com> <20200113133325.417bf657@p-imbrenda> <1b86b00a-261e-3d8c-fa52-c30e67463ad5@redhat.com> <20200113135832.1c6d3bb8@p-imbrenda> <22b5ce6a-18af-edec-efc6-e03450faddf8@redhat.com> <20200113150504.3fd218d5@p-imbrenda> <3db7eaf7-6020-365b-c849-9961e483352e@redhat.com> <20200113162439.7ae81f84@p-imbrenda> <9f0bee07-28bc-8154-3c67-402c82da8f89@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20200113171715.7334c1be@p-imbrenda> Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: David Hildenbrand Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, thuth@redhat.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 17:06:05 +0100 David Hildenbrand wrote: [...] > >>> this would be solved by adding special logic to the pgm interrupt > >>> handler (as we have discussed in your previous email) > >>> > >> > >> I see, so the issue should hold for all SCLP checks where we don't > >> expect an exception ... hmmm > > > > which is why my wrapper in the unit test is so complicated :) > > > > so .... if we would implement my suggestion (if we get an exception > on a servc instruction, clear sclp_busy) that code would get > simplified as well? :) sure, as I said, that can be done. The question is if we really want to change something in the interrupt handler (shared by all s390x unit tests) just for the benefit of this one unit test. Also consider that the changes to the interrupt handler would not necessarily be trivial. i.e. you need to check that the origin of the pgm interrupt is a SERVC instruction, and then act accordingly.