On 2/26/20 6:51 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 15:27:52 +0100
> David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 26.02.20 13:20, Janosch Frank wrote:
>>> Lets make it a bit more clear that we're extracting the 31 bit address
> 
> s/Lets/Let's/ :)

Ack

> 
>>> from the short psw.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>>  hw/s390x/ipl.c     | 2 +-
>>>  target/s390x/cpu.c | 4 ++--
>>>  target/s390x/cpu.h | 1 +
>>>  3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/ipl.c b/hw/s390x/ipl.c
>>> index 7773499d7f..42e21e7a6a 100644
>>> --- a/hw/s390x/ipl.c
>>> +++ b/hw/s390x/ipl.c
>>> @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ static void s390_ipl_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp)
>>>                  /* if not Linux load the address of the (short) IPL PSW */
>>>                  ipl_psw = rom_ptr(4, 4);
>>>                  if (ipl_psw) {
>>> -                    pentry = be32_to_cpu(*ipl_psw) & 0x7fffffffUL;
>>> +                    pentry = be32_to_cpu(*ipl_psw) & PSW_MASK_ESA_ADDR;
>>>                  } else {
>>>                      error_setg(&err, "Could not get IPL PSW");
>>>                      goto error;
>>> diff --git a/target/s390x/cpu.c b/target/s390x/cpu.c
>>> index 8da1905485..43360912a0 100644
>>> --- a/target/s390x/cpu.c
>>> +++ b/target/s390x/cpu.c
>>> @@ -78,13 +78,13 @@ static void s390_cpu_load_normal(CPUState *s)
>>>      S390CPU *cpu = S390_CPU(s);
>>>      uint64_t spsw = ldq_phys(s->as, 0);
>>>  
>>> -    cpu->env.psw.mask = spsw & 0xffffffff80000000ULL;
>>> +    cpu->env.psw.mask = spsw & PSW_MASK_ESA_MASK;
>>>      /*
>>>       * Invert short psw indication, so SIE will report a specification
>>>       * exception if it was not set.
>>>       */
>>>      cpu->env.psw.mask ^= PSW_MASK_SHORTPSW;
>>> -    cpu->env.psw.addr = spsw & 0x7fffffffULL;
>>> +    cpu->env.psw.addr = spsw & PSW_MASK_ESA_ADDR;
>>>  
>>>      s390_cpu_set_state(S390_CPU_STATE_OPERATING, cpu);
>>>  }
>>> diff --git a/target/s390x/cpu.h b/target/s390x/cpu.h
>>> index 8a557fd8d1..74e66fe0c2 100644
>>> --- a/target/s390x/cpu.h
>>> +++ b/target/s390x/cpu.h
>>> @@ -277,6 +277,7 @@ extern const VMStateDescription vmstate_s390_cpu;
>>>  #define PSW_MASK_64             0x0000000100000000ULL
>>>  #define PSW_MASK_32             0x0000000080000000ULL
>>>  #define PSW_MASK_ESA_ADDR       0x000000007fffffffULL
>>> +#define PSW_MASK_ESA_MASK       0xffffffff80000000ULL  
>>
>> ..._MASK_..._MASK
>>
>> Isn't there a better name for all the bits in the PSW that are not an
>> address?
>>
>> PSW_MASK_ESA_BITS
>> PSW_MASK_ESA_FLAGS
>> ...
> 
> Hm, the PoP says that the PSW "includes the instruction address,
> condition code, and other control fields"; it also talks about the
> 'short' PSW as being distinct from the 'ESA' PSW (bit 31 may be 0 or 1
> in the short PSW). Maybe
> 
> PSW_MASK_SHORT_ADDR
> PSW_MASK_SHORT_CTRL

Sure, why not

> 
> (Or keep _ESA_ if renaming creates too much churn.)
> 
>>
>>>  
>>>  #undef PSW_ASC_PRIMARY
>>>  #undef PSW_ASC_ACCREG
>>>   
>>
>>
> 
> This patch is also independent of the protected virtualization
> support... I plan to send a pull request tomorrow, so I can include
> this patch, if we agree on a name for the constant :)

Well, you would also need to rename all users of PSW_MASK_ESA_ADDR
Let me split that up into two patches, the rename for the ADDR and this
one. I'll send it out once I'm more or less awake.