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=-15.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=unavailable 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 9147DC43460 for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 14:42:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 645E161288 for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 14:42:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231917AbhEKOnh (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 May 2021 10:43:37 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:33234 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231907AbhEKOnf (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 May 2021 10:43:35 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 14BEXset163153; Tue, 11 May 2021 10:42:28 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=xhQ5gEgTEeMF+s/V9Qj5bWmsYrCIYbh9/ofq4Ybpz8M=; b=ePW+ufh/AzL9rnHVKFMpPFYnnQJpufEcz4/yu5ROsqWbYoq43SydEFKVHiGY8DfRhNC4 ehjgbgl+iIf4kjgcFDRUybRWK2zUeKi27uDynY8WeXOQYGgEqJ3W6F9co8gDgNi+gCiR Wb/Vb8kwqaOGFuTo/ynQWXapoPNDvszYLO1DbbYFV7/Te6j+3YlHruMQG6c4uNKEMzkw 98yBUB4aM6mbSPSS/g4YEQouHDIhDyhCfhUXWgUI3uRyoRq9PLePVMq6iTZxTcMQJonn UFwOdUrNWCK2qgXmPYVIlpsJtfvofWrwk+2qNJc7L9N2PfF1A6LdBDsIg3nXdmyFgUKX SA== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 38ftxdj2nj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 11 May 2021 10:42:28 -0400 Received: from m0098404.ppops.net (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 14BEY2r2164032; Tue, 11 May 2021 10:42:28 -0400 Received: from ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (63.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.99]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 38ftxdj2mh-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 11 May 2021 10:42:28 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 14BEcYh5014416; Tue, 11 May 2021 14:42:25 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay13.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.198]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 38dj989que-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 11 May 2021 14:42:25 +0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 14BEgN0942205484 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 11 May 2021 14:42:23 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 318EB11C052; Tue, 11 May 2021 14:42:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AED211C050; Tue, 11 May 2021 14:42:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ibm-vm (unknown [9.145.13.244]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 May 2021 14:42:22 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 16:41:37 +0200 From: Claudio Imbrenda To: David Hildenbrand Cc: Janosch Frank , kvm@vger.kernel.org, cohuck@redhat.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, thuth@redhat.com Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 2/4] lib: s390x: sclp: Extend feature probing Message-ID: <20210511164137.0bba2493@ibm-vm> In-Reply-To: References: <20210510150015.11119-1-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <20210510150015.11119-3-frankja@linux.ibm.com> Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: QAgOKv-2UUEHbWhPpziu3UM8E8gDY0mq X-Proofpoint-GUID: XlNrX_1PY4GDd7c4qVzDpD-mOTgTy-NZ X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391,18.0.761 definitions=2021-05-11_02:2021-05-11,2021-05-11 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104190000 definitions=main-2105110110 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 11 May 2021 13:43:36 +0200 David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 10.05.21 17:00, Janosch Frank wrote: > > Lets grab more of the feature bits from SCLP read info so we can use > > them in the cpumodel tests. > > > > Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank > > Reviewed-by: Claudio Imbrenda > > --- > > lib/s390x/sclp.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ > > lib/s390x/sclp.h | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > > 2 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/lib/s390x/sclp.c b/lib/s390x/sclp.c > > index f11c2035..f25cfdb2 100644 > > --- a/lib/s390x/sclp.c > > +++ b/lib/s390x/sclp.c > > @@ -129,6 +129,13 @@ CPUEntry *sclp_get_cpu_entries(void) > > return (CPUEntry *)(_read_info + read_info->offset_cpu); > > } > > > > +static bool sclp_feat_check(int byte, int mask) > > +{ > > + uint8_t *rib = (uint8_t *)read_info; > > + > > + return !!(rib[byte] & mask); > > +} > > Instead of a mask, I'd just check for bit (offset) numbers within the > byte. > > static bool sclp_feat_check(int byte, int bit) > { > uint8_t *rib = (uint8_t *)read_info; > > return !!(rib[byte] & (0x80 >> bit)); > } using a mask might be useful to check multiple facilities at the same time, but in that case the check should be return (rib[byte] & mask) == mask I have no strong opinions either way