On 17.10.2017 16:04, Halil Pasic wrote: > 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 and absence of required ORB flags. > > Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > --- > hw/s390x/css.c | 84 > +++++++++++++-------------------------------- > hw/s390x/s390-ccw.c | 11 +++--- > hw/vfio/ccw.c | 28 +++++++++++---- > include/hw/s390x/css.h | 23 +++++++++---- > include/hw/s390x/s390-ccw.h | 2 +- > target/s390x/ioinst.c | 53 ++++------------------------ > 6 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 126 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/s390x/css.c b/hw/s390x/css.c > index aa233d5f8a..ff5a05c34b 100644 > --- a/hw/s390x/css.c > +++ b/hw/s390x/css.c > @@ -1181,12 +1181,11 @@ 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)) { > @@ -1200,31 +1199,12 @@ static int sch_handle_start_func_passthrough(SubchDev > *sch) > */ > if (!(orb->ctrl0 & ORB_CTRL0_MASK_PFCH) || > !(orb->ctrl0 & ORB_CTRL0_MASK_C64)) { > - return -EINVAL; > + warn_report("vfio-ccw requires PFCH and C64 flags set...");
Not sure, but should this maybe rather be a "qemu_log_mask(LOG_GUEST_ERROR, ...)" instead? Anyway, as Cornelia already mentioned it: Please drop the trailing dots. > + sch_gen_unit_exception(sch); > + css_inject_io_interrupt(sch); > + return IOINST_CC_EXPECTED; > } [...] > @@ -1844,27 +1816,23 @@ void css_do_schm(uint8_t mbk, int update, int dct, > uint64_t mbo) > } > } > > -int css_do_rsch(SubchDev *sch) > +IOInstEnding css_do_rsch(SubchDev *sch) > { > SCSW *s = &sch->curr_status.scsw; > PMCW *p = &sch->curr_status.pmcw; > - int ret; > > if (~(p->flags) & (PMCW_FLAGS_MASK_DNV | PMCW_FLAGS_MASK_ENA)) { > - ret = -ENODEV; > - goto out; > + return IOINST_CC_NOT_OPERATIONAL; > } > > if (s->ctrl & SCSW_STCTL_STATUS_PEND) { > - ret = -EINPROGRESS; > - goto out; > + return IOINST_CC_STATUS_PRESENT; > } > > if (((s->ctrl & SCSW_CTRL_MASK_FCTL) != SCSW_FCTL_START_FUNC) || > (s->ctrl & SCSW_ACTL_RESUME_PEND) || > (!(s->ctrl & SCSW_ACTL_SUSP))) { > - ret = -EINVAL; > - goto out; > + return IOINST_CC_BUSY; Why is EINVAL now mapped to IOINST_CC_BUSY? Shouldn't that be IOINST_CC_STATUS_PRESENT instead? > } [...] > diff --git a/hw/vfio/ccw.c b/hw/vfio/ccw.c > index 76323c6bde..1cc2e5d873 100644 > --- a/hw/vfio/ccw.c > +++ b/hw/vfio/ccw.c > @@ -47,9 +47,9 @@ struct VFIODeviceOps vfio_ccw_ops = { > .vfio_compute_needs_reset = vfio_ccw_compute_needs_reset, > }; > > -static int vfio_ccw_handle_request(ORB *orb, SCSW *scsw, void *data) > +static IOInstEnding vfio_ccw_handle_request(SubchDev *sch) > { > - S390CCWDevice *cdev = data; > + S390CCWDevice *cdev = sch->driver_data; > VFIOCCWDevice *vcdev = DO_UPCAST(VFIOCCWDevice, cdev, cdev); > struct ccw_io_region *region = vcdev->io_region; > int ret; > @@ -60,8 +60,8 @@ static int vfio_ccw_handle_request(ORB *orb, SCSW *scsw, > void *data) > > memset(region, 0, sizeof(*region)); > > - memcpy(region->orb_area, orb, sizeof(ORB)); > - memcpy(region->scsw_area, scsw, sizeof(SCSW)); > + memcpy(region->orb_area, &sch->orb, sizeof(ORB)); > + memcpy(region->scsw_area, &sch->curr_status.scsw, sizeof(SCSW)); > > again: > ret = pwrite(vcdev->vdev.fd, region, > @@ -71,10 +71,24 @@ again: > goto again; > } > error_report("vfio-ccw: wirte I/O region failed with errno=%d", > errno); > - return -errno; > + ret = -errno; > + } else { > + ret = region->ret_code; > + } > + switch (-ret) { > + case 0: > + return IOINST_CC_EXPECTED; > + case EBUSY: > + return IOINST_CC_BUSY; > + case ENODEV: > + case EACCES: > + return IOINST_CC_NOT_OPERATIONAL; > + case EFAULT: > + default: > + sch_gen_unit_exception(sch); > + css_inject_io_interrupt(sch); > + return IOINST_CC_EXPECTED; Do we feel really confident that it is OK to do the setcc() in case of an exception here later? ... otherwise it might be necessery to introduce something like IOINST_EXCEPTION to the enum to signal the ioinst_handle_xxx() callers that they should not do the setcc() anymore... Thomas