On 05/08/2018 09:30 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>
> On 05/02/2018 04:28 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 02.05.2018 14:42, Heiko Carstens wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 01:08:14PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> This makes it certainly more readable.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c | 10 +++++-----
>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
>>>> index 969882b54266..7c51a9dc0ec8 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
>>>> @@ -557,7 +557,7 @@ static int pin_blocks(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vsie_page *vsie_page)
>>>> if (test_kvm_cpu_feat(vcpu->kvm, KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_64BSCAO))
>>>> gpa |= (u64) READ_ONCE(scb_o->scaoh) << 32;
>>>> if (gpa) {
>>>> - if (!(gpa & ~0x1fffUL))
>>>> + if (gpa < 8192)
>>>
>>> 2 * PAGE_SIZE, please. That's how it is done on various other places too.
>>>
>>
>> Christian, does the documentation use the wording "lowcore" or "8192" / 8k?
>>
>> If it is lowcore, I agree to use 2 * PAGE_SIZE. If not, I prefer it to
>> directly match documentation.
>>
>> Anyhow, I leave this decision to Janosch and Christian. Thanks for
>> having alook!
>>
> prefix area and reverse prefix area.
> In fact what we check here is actually the reversed prefix area so for completeness we
> would need an additional check.
We seem to check both for SCA so we are good for SCA.
