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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B133C10F29 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 09:55:39 +0000 (UTC) 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 mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3726C20663 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 09:55:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="ea3xQgJ8" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3726C20663 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:55318 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jE8wk-0004mh-BF for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 05:55:38 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59137) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jE8uZ-0001cP-1E for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 05:53:24 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jE8uX-0000z4-S0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 05:53:22 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-74.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.74]:30017) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jE8uX-0000wF-MH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 05:53:21 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1584438801; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=PEn5Lh+NmTAvhU/mobJWJAQBBL2vDWH4MTgpAqWAxoo=; b=ea3xQgJ84AYH30NIdOn5lQoX3D45i+HIe50gVUWm2UCClLT8ub/MjrXauICALn+JvCkPDN hw8+LsYcWIU/6ni04+250/fHQ6D8ct98OM8WOo28/06ZPVbFlUs/HzPUBku59hVcfInynE ef7LdsDGW0TThDauSVoEiJHU31u49x8= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-382-zn1zra1UPNSfpQ5_X5OUwQ-1; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 05:53:17 -0400 X-MC-Unique: zn1zra1UPNSfpQ5_X5OUwQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AB6D19057A0; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 09:53:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gondolin (ovpn-113-156.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.113.156]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69FCD8AC30; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 09:53:12 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 10:53:09 +0100 From: Cornelia Huck To: Christian Borntraeger Subject: Re: [PATCH v9] fixup! Fix subcode/pbt Message-ID: <20200317105309.195bc3ce.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <0fcd69fc-0e23-5cd1-bd21-0c4923a99ef1@de.ibm.com> References: <20200313095232.2392-1-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <20200316152738.4c1c65ee.cohuck@redhat.com> <20200316155457.73e97d9c.cohuck@redhat.com> <20200316185708.30d23522.cohuck@redhat.com> <0fcd69fc-0e23-5cd1-bd21-0c4923a99ef1@de.ibm.com> Organization: Red Hat GmbH MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 63.128.21.74 X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, david@redhat.com, Janosch Frank , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 20:42:33 +0100 Christian Borntraeger wrote: > On 16.03.20 18:57, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 16:04:00 +0100 > > Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > >> On 16.03.20 15:54, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:47:41 +0100 > >>> Janosch Frank wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 3/16/20 3:27 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 05:52:32 -0400 > >>>>> Janosch Frank wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> hw/s390x/ipl.h | 11 +++++++---- > >>>>>> target/s390x/diag.c | 2 +- > >>>>>> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> > >>>>>> @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ void handle_diag_308(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t r1, uint64_t r3, uintptr_t ra) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> cpu_physical_memory_read(addr, iplb, be32_to_cpu(iplb->len)); > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - if (!iplb_valid(iplb)) { > >>>>>> + if (!iplb_valid(iplb, subcode)) { > >>>>>> env->regs[r1 + 1] = DIAG_308_RC_INVALID; > >>>>>> goto out; > >>>>>> } > >>>>> > >>>>> ...because you're basically checking whether you either have a valid > >>>>> normal iplb, or a valid pv iplb, with the two being mutually exclusive, > >>>>> IIUC. So what about introducing iplb_valid_pv and calling that for the > >>>>> pv case? Would be a bit nicer to read, I think, and also matches what > >>>>> you do for the STORE case. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> The idea was to get rid of all of these ifs and elses and only have one > >>>> iplb_valid function. Your suggestion would defeat hiding that complexity > >>>> behind this function. > >>> > >>> I'd argue that this is a complexity we should not hide; for non-pv, we > >>> can have several formats, for pv, only one, and we cannot use a pv iplb > >>> in a non-pv context and vice versa. > >> > >> So you suggest to split these case statements? > >> case DIAG308_STORE: > >> case DIAG308_PV_STORE: > > > > Why? Those cases are already done in the way I suggest for these here > > as well (i.e. keep common checks, just split the iplb handling.) > > This was more of a question. I was not sure what your suggestion was. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. For the store case, you have if (subcode == DIAG308_PV_STORE) { iplb = s390_ipl_get_iplb_pv(); } else { iplb = s390_ipl_get_iplb(); } with the rest of the handling being identical. My suggestion was to use something like valid = subcode == DIAG308_PV_SET ? iplb_valid_pv(iplb) : iplb_valid(iplb); if (!valid) { env->regs[r1 + 1] = DIAG_308_RC_INVALID; goto out; }