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,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham 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 F1F15C4361B for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 14:32:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A09602395A for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 14:32:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727315AbgLQOcU (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Dec 2020 09:32:20 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:15078 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726291AbgLQOcU (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Dec 2020 09:32:20 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0BHEDlCX024617; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 09:31:39 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=subject : to : cc : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=GLVvRQTAYdSlaAC6I1xghJU5/TEzfSzY+zfggkGMCfE=; b=kYZitWi/fWkbrCNUmefX2h5AFVRgICmDIJbKTerPnN5qf06hriVt+XqgfQRHM+RKOC63 2FwFJ7L44AJ86bEHFjeFyRC7WDv/Md5xcVGGV4R0VpI0vW9wu2Q/ek1a53JOt5SbCqOg hnmtF3lD0MTPv11vJGtOpzQ7akC4z2kOE+o75qzURX6xWg2d4Ko57hUWDWpMIyblDZy4 ozslMpkiETTBO3eKkD8242loF67HFzZVuuIewkJTtZJIHwNKYMNEw7kAQs/sFu8v+qDc SStH2cJsgOuoTnxfEtRmzDeJlZzPX6ltNKXp//4Kby6ZdtURXFnh9BakAk/OcAR/h/qI Tg== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 35g8qrgx97-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 17 Dec 2020 09:31:39 -0500 Received: from m0098404.ppops.net (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 0BHEVdrE109187; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 09:31:39 -0500 Received: from ppma06fra.de.ibm.com (48.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.72]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 35g8qrgx7p-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 17 Dec 2020 09:31:38 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0BHESB4U009683; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 14:31:36 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.194]) by ppma06fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 35d310aj4v-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 17 Dec 2020 14:31:36 +0000 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 0BHEVX8x24314346 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 17 Dec 2020 14:31:33 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 640D4A405F; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 14:31:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3B79A4054; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 14:31:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.145.181.71]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 14:31:32 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 7/8] s390x: Add diag318 intercept test To: Thomas Huth , Christian Borntraeger , kvm@vger.kernel.org Cc: david@redhat.com, imbrenda@linux.ibm.com, cohuck@redhat.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org References: <20201211100039.63597-1-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <20201211100039.63597-8-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <4f689585-ae2e-4632-9055-f2332d9f7751@redhat.com> <44d6ac32-f7ac-6b33-ea9e-e037f936a181@de.ibm.com> <24e9883c-22d5-de4f-0001-d271855d7ea3@redhat.com> From: Janosch Frank Message-ID: <23af5bca-dd2c-43bd-b2b4-6c7e2031517f@linux.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 15:31:32 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <24e9883c-22d5-de4f-0001-d271855d7ea3@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343,18.0.737 definitions=2020-12-17_09:2020-12-15,2020-12-17 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012170099 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On 12/17/20 11:34 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 17/12/2020 10.59, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >> >> >> On 17.12.20 10:53, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> On 11/12/2020 11.00, Janosch Frank wrote: >>>> Not much to test except for the privilege and specification >>>> exceptions. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank >>>> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth >>>> --- >>>> lib/s390x/sclp.c | 2 ++ >>>> lib/s390x/sclp.h | 6 +++++- >>>> s390x/intercept.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/sclp.c b/lib/s390x/sclp.c >>>> index cf6ea7c..0001993 100644 >>>> --- a/lib/s390x/sclp.c >>>> +++ b/lib/s390x/sclp.c >>>> @@ -138,6 +138,8 @@ void sclp_facilities_setup(void) >>>> >>>> assert(read_info); >>>> >>>> + sclp_facilities.has_diag318 = read_info->byte_134_diag318; >>>> + >>>> cpu = (void *)read_info + read_info->offset_cpu; >>>> for (i = 0; i < read_info->entries_cpu; i++, cpu++) { >>>> if (cpu->address == cpu0_addr) { >>>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/sclp.h b/lib/s390x/sclp.h >>>> index 6c86037..58f8e54 100644 >>>> --- a/lib/s390x/sclp.h >>>> +++ b/lib/s390x/sclp.h >>>> @@ -105,7 +105,8 @@ extern struct sclp_facilities sclp_facilities; >>>> >>>> struct sclp_facilities { >>>> uint64_t has_sief2 : 1; >>>> - uint64_t : 63; >>>> + uint64_t has_diag318 : 1; >>>> + uint64_t : 62; >>>> }; >>>> >>>> typedef struct ReadInfo { >>>> @@ -130,6 +131,9 @@ typedef struct ReadInfo { >>>> uint16_t highest_cpu; >>>> uint8_t _reserved5[124 - 122]; /* 122-123 */ >>>> uint32_t hmfai; >>>> + uint8_t reserved7[134 - 128]; >>>> + uint8_t byte_134_diag318 : 1; >>>> + uint8_t : 7; >>>> struct CPUEntry entries[0]; >>> >>> ... the entries[] array can be moved around here without any further ado? >>> Looks confusing to me. Should there be a CPUEntry array here at all, or only >>> in ReadCpuInfo? >> >> there is offset_cpu for the cpu entries at the beginning of the structure. > > Ah, thanks, right, this was used earlier in the patch series, now I > remember. But I think the "struct CPUEntry entries[0]" here is rather > confusing, since there is no guarantee that the entries are really at this > location ... I think this line should rather be replaced by a comment saying > that offset_cpu should be used instead. Sure, as long as it's clear that there's something at the end, I'm fine with it. > > Thomas >