* Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2017-10-11 12:54:51 +0200]:
>
>
> On 10/11/2017 05:47 AM, Dong Jia Shi wrote:
> > * Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2017-10-04 17:41:39 +0200]:
> >
> >> Simplify the error handling of the SSCH and RSCH handler avoiding
> >> arbitrary and cryptic error codes being used to tell how the instruction
> >> is supposed to end. Let the code detecting the condition tell how it's
> >> to be handled in a less ambiguous way. It's best to handle SSCH and RSCH
> >> in one go as the emulation of the two shares a lot of code.
> >>
> >> For passthrough this change isn't pure refactoring, but changes the
> >> way kernel reported EFAULT is handled. After clarifying the kernel
> >> interface we decided that EFAULT shall be mapped to unit exception.
> >> Same goes for unexpected error codes.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> AFAIR we decided in the previous round to rather do transformation
> >> and fixing in one patch than touch stuff twice. Hence this patch
> >> ain't pure transformation any more.
> >> ---
> >> hw/s390x/css.c | 83
> >> +++++++++++++--------------------------------
> >> hw/s390x/s390-ccw.c | 11 +++---
> >> hw/vfio/ccw.c | 30 ++++++++++++----
> >> include/hw/s390x/css.h | 24 +++++++++----
> >> include/hw/s390x/s390-ccw.h | 2 +-
> >> target/s390x/ioinst.c | 53 ++++-------------------------
> >> 6 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 126 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/hw/s390x/css.c b/hw/s390x/css.c
> >> index 4f47dbc8b0..b2978c3bae 100644
> >> --- a/hw/s390x/css.c
> >> +++ b/hw/s390x/css.c
> >> @@ -1003,12 +1003,11 @@ static void sch_handle_start_func_virtual(SubchDev
> >> *sch)
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >> -static int sch_handle_start_func_passthrough(SubchDev *sch)
> >> +static IOInstEnding sch_handle_start_func_passthrough(SubchDev *sch)
> >> {
> >>
> >> PMCW *p = &sch->curr_status.pmcw;
> >> SCSW *s = &sch->curr_status.scsw;
> >> - int ret;
> >>
> >> ORB *orb = &sch->orb;
> >> if (!(s->ctrl & SCSW_ACTL_SUSP)) {
> >> @@ -1022,31 +1021,11 @@ static int
> >> sch_handle_start_func_passthrough(SubchDev *sch)
> >> */
> >> if (!(orb->ctrl0 & ORB_CTRL0_MASK_PFCH) ||
> >> !(orb->ctrl0 & ORB_CTRL0_MASK_C64)) {
> >> - return -EINVAL;
> >> + sch_gen_unit_exception(sch);
> >> + css_inject_io_interrupt(sch);
> >> + return (IOInstEnding){.cc = 0};
> > This behavior change is not mentioned in the commit message. Right?
> >
> No this particular change is not. Should I mention it explicitly?
I think so.
> Maybe "Same goes for unexpected error codes and absence of required
> ORB flags."
Sounds good for me.
[...]
--
Dong Jia Shi
