From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:59248 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236137AbhBBQQL (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Feb 2021 11:16:11 -0500 Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v1 3/5] s390x: css: implementing Set CHannel Monitor References: <1611930869-25745-1-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <1611930869-25745-4-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <20210202124818.6084bb36.cohuck@redhat.com> From: Pierre Morel Message-ID: Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 17:15:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210202124818.6084bb36.cohuck@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-ID: To: Cornelia Huck Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, frankja@linux.ibm.com, david@redhat.com, thuth@redhat.com, imbrenda@linux.ibm.com On 2/2/21 12:48 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 15:34:27 +0100 > Pierre Morel wrote: > >> We implement the call of the Set CHannel Monitor instruction, >> starting the monitoring of the all Channel Sub System, and > > "initializing channel subsystem monitoring" ? Yes, better I take this. > >> the initialization of the monitoring on a Sub Channel. > > "enabling monitoring for a subchannel" ? > >> >> An initial test reports the presence of the extended measurement >> block feature. >> >> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel >> --- >> lib/s390x/css.h | 17 +++++++++- >> lib/s390x/css_lib.c | 77 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> s390x/css.c | 7 +++++ >> 3 files changed, 100 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > > (...) > >> diff --git a/lib/s390x/css_lib.c b/lib/s390x/css_lib.c >> index f300969..9e0f568 100644 >> --- a/lib/s390x/css_lib.c >> +++ b/lib/s390x/css_lib.c >> @@ -205,6 +205,83 @@ retry: >> return -1; >> } >> >> +/* >> + * css_enable_mb: enable the subchannel Mesurement Block >> + * @schid: Subchannel Identifier >> + * @mb : 64bit address of the measurement block >> + * @format1: set if format 1 is to be used >> + * @mbi : the measurement block offset >> + * @flags : PMCW_MBUE to enable measurement block update >> + * PMCW_DCTME to enable device connect time >> + * Return value: >> + * On success: 0 >> + * On error the CC of the faulty instruction >> + * or -1 if the retry count is exceeded. >> + */ >> +int css_enable_mb(int schid, uint64_t mb, int format1, uint16_t mbi, >> + uint16_t flags) >> +{ >> + struct pmcw *pmcw = &schib.pmcw; >> + int retry_count = 0; >> + int cc; >> + >> + /* Read the SCHIB for this subchannel */ >> + cc = stsch(schid, &schib); >> + if (cc) { >> + report_info("stsch: sch %08x failed with cc=%d", schid, cc); >> + return cc; >> + } >> + >> +retry: >> + /* Update the SCHIB to enable the measurement block */ >> + pmcw->flags |= flags; >> + >> + if (format1) >> + pmcw->flags2 |= PMCW_MBF1; >> + else >> + pmcw->flags2 &= ~PMCW_MBF1; >> + >> + pmcw->mbi = mbi; >> + schib.mbo = mb; >> + >> + /* Tell the CSS we want to modify the subchannel */ >> + cc = msch(schid, &schib); > > Setting some invalid flags for measurements in the schib could lead to > an operand exception. Do we want to rely on the caller always getting > it right, or should we add handling for those invalid flags? (Might > also make a nice test case.) Yes it does. I add new test cases to test if we get the right error. Thanks, Pierre -- Pierre Morel IBM Lab Boeblingen