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 B5AAAC433ED for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 15:46:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8227A61260 for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 15:46:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231852AbhEKPsC (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 May 2021 11:48:02 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:26500 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231764AbhEKPsB (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 May 2021 11:48:01 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 14BFWnx8065318; Tue, 11 May 2021 11:46:54 -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=uXO05UFzDX2kOyKxIHxz7GAoCbbFq4yyVqiOFNRnihM=; b=gd3GqF4TdsfnmTb65T1UwLkssp6XKPBcW++zSpHPKdOBib8DTweJj8bKssmpCN5Q9yLh 2pBfOiCzG9ZNeS3dxE1UggUA0jcQIP8YAeUz5NaNPbh6O7LFkE9BHyZMvncOsnIKGKOp gnebyoJNw2N711c46an76JH6e724r4v/aw+2hpyLOrh2fkupTvG1jIT9n+8Kg93rkE9h 4oQt5YSfGbqnpueXS+DTgG24/xhFAlxtXncFFpsRolGFtnscr/QO+DVMRxMi6bj6ntpG Nhhh1WuelHIb6/4baJfGq7TABY5PJ9yW/u/xrEvPHEpkLkarXtXQ9vrEcwllbZqZK2K4 Ww== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 38fsr5y5kg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 11 May 2021 11:46:54 -0400 Received: from m0098393.ppops.net (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 14BFWnVw065306; Tue, 11 May 2021 11:46:53 -0400 Received: from ppma02fra.de.ibm.com (47.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.71]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 38fsr5y5hw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 11 May 2021 11:46:53 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 14BFh5YV009068; Tue, 11 May 2021 15:46:51 GMT Received: from b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.26.194]) by ppma02fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 38dj988xw4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 11 May 2021 15:46:50 +0000 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 14BFkLxj34734346 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 11 May 2021 15:46:21 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 653C14C040; Tue, 11 May 2021 15:46:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE6B14C044; Tue, 11 May 2021 15:46:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ibm-vm (unknown [9.145.13.244]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 May 2021 15:46:47 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 17:46:45 +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: <20210511174645.550c741d@ibm-vm> In-Reply-To: <2f0284e1-b1e0-39d6-1fe0-3be808be1849@redhat.com> References: <20210510150015.11119-1-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <20210510150015.11119-3-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <20210511164137.0bba2493@ibm-vm> <2f0284e1-b1e0-39d6-1fe0-3be808be1849@redhat.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-GUID: 2TAF1BV_n3EykHt4V4g_nZSnNELbbFc8 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: cfIqKpPfDtsfkyoparEfkTRV3s-LG0Rj 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 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104190000 definitions=main-2105110112 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 11 May 2021 17:38:04 +0200 David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 11.05.21 16:41, Claudio Imbrenda wrote: > > 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 > > IMHO checking with a mask here multiple facilities will be very error > prone either way ... and we only have a single byte to check for. as I said, I do not have a strong opinion either way :)