Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] target/s390x: Return UVC cmd code, RC and RRC value when DIAG 308 Subcode 10 fails to enter secure mode
On 22/04/2025 15.17, Janosch Frank wrote:
On 4/17/25 2:37 PM, Gautam Gala wrote:
Extend DIAG308 subcode 10 to return the UVC RC, RRC and command code
in bit positions 32-47, 16-31, and 0-15 of register R1 + 1 if the
function does not complete successfully (in addition to the
previously returned diag response code in bit position 47-63).
Signed-off-by: Gautam Gala
---
[...]
+void s390_pv_inject_reset_error(CPUState *cs,
+ struct S390PVResponse pv_resp)
{
int r1 = (cs->kvm_run->s390_sieic.ipa & 0x00f0) >> 4;
CPUS390XState *env = &S390_CPU(cs)->env;
+ union {
+ struct {
+ uint16_t pv_cmd;
+ uint16_t pv_rrc;
+ uint16_t pv_rc;
+ uint16_t diag_rc;
+ };
+ uint64_t regs;
+ } resp = {.pv_cmd = pv_resp.cmd,
+ .pv_rrc = pv_resp.rrc,
+ .pv_rc = pv_resp.rc,
+ .diag_rc = DIAG_308_RC_INVAL_FOR_PV};
+
@Thomas: Is the formatting of the assignments correct or should there be no
assignment on lines containing "{}"?
Checkpatch is happy, though personally I find it hard to read.
I think I'd rather have the ".pv_cmd = ..." start on the next line.
Thanks
Thomas
Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] target/s390x: Return UVC cmd code, RC and RRC value when DIAG 308 Subcode 10 fails to enter secure mode
On 4/17/25 2:37 PM, Gautam Gala wrote:
Extend DIAG308 subcode 10 to return the UVC RC, RRC and command code
in bit positions 32-47, 16-31, and 0-15 of register R1 + 1 if the
function does not complete successfully (in addition to the
previously returned diag response code in bit position 47-63).
Signed-off-by: Gautam Gala
---
[...]
+void s390_pv_inject_reset_error(CPUState *cs,
+struct S390PVResponse pv_resp)
{
int r1 = (cs->kvm_run->s390_sieic.ipa & 0x00f0) >> 4;
CPUS390XState *env = &S390_CPU(cs)->env;
+union {
+struct {
+uint16_t pv_cmd;
+uint16_t pv_rrc;
+uint16_t pv_rc;
+uint16_t diag_rc;
+};
+uint64_t regs;
+} resp = {.pv_cmd = pv_resp.cmd,
+ .pv_rrc = pv_resp.rrc,
+ .pv_rc = pv_resp.rc,
+ .diag_rc = DIAG_308_RC_INVAL_FOR_PV};
+
@Thomas: Is the formatting of the assignments correct or should there be
no assignment on lines containing "{}"?
Checkpatch is happy, though personally I find it hard to read.
Once that's clear or fixed:
Reviewed-by: Janosch Frank
