On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 15:23:32 +0200 David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 26.09.19 12:16, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > This is the follow up of: > > [PATCH-for-4.2 v1 0/9] s390x: MMU changes and extensions > > Without the general MMU rework. It's based on: > > [PATCH v2 0/7] s390x/mmu: DAT translation rewrite > > > > This series adds adds EDAT2 MMU support, and implements/indicates related > > facilities (ESOP-1, ESOP-2, IEP, ...) for TCG. The QEMU CPU model is > > updated. > > > > IEP under QEMU TCG seems to work just fine, when eabling it via the "max" > > CPU model - via kvm unit tests: > > t460s: ~/git/kvm-unit-tests master $ ./s390x-run s390x/iep.elf -cpu max > > [...] > > PASS: iep: iep protection: Program interrupt: expected(4) == received(4) > > SUMMARY: 1 tests > > > > EXIT: STATUS=1 > > > > Changes since "[PATCH-for-4.2 v1 0/9] s390x: MMU changes and extensions": > > - "s390x/mmu: Add EDAT2 translation support" > > -- Fix vaddr offset within 2GB page > > - "s390x/mmu: Implement ESOP-2 and ..." > > -- Squashed two patches as requested. > > -- Also set ilen to "2" in case of MMU_INST_FETCH on mmu_translate_real > > - "s390x/mmu: Implement Instruction-Execution-Protection Facility" > > -- Make sure s390_cpu_get_phys_page_debug() doesn't choke on IEP > > - "s390x/cpumodel: Add new TCG features to QEMU cpu model" > > -- Add comment "features introduced after the z13" > > > > Cc: Ilya Leoshkevich <i...@linux.ibm.com> > > > > David Hildenbrand (5): > > s390x/mmu: Add EDAT2 translation support > > s390x/mmu: Implement ESOP-2 and > > access-exception-fetch/store-indication facility > > s390x/mmu: Implement Instruction-Execution-Protection Facility > > s390x/cpumodel: Prepare for changes of QEMU model > > s390x/cpumodel: Add new TCG features to QEMU cpu model > > > > hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c | 2 ++ > > target/s390x/cpu.h | 1 + > > target/s390x/gen-features.c | 11 +++++++++- > > target/s390x/helper.c | 6 +++++- > > target/s390x/mmu_helper.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > 5 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > @Christian (@Conny) if I can get an ACK on the last patch, I can send > this directly upstream. > No objections from my side, I won't get around to reviewing it in detail anyway.