On 30/04/2019 10:18, Pierre Morel wrote:
On 29/04/2019 18:50, Halil Pasic wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:01:27 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+static struct ap_queue_status vfio_ap_setirq(struct vfio_ap_queue *q)
+{
+ struct ap_qirq_ctrl aqic_gisa = {};
+ struct ap_queue_status status = {};
+ struct kvm_s390_gisa *gisa;
+ struct kvm *kvm;
+ unsigned long h_nib, h_pfn;
+ int ret;
+
+ q->a_pfn = q->a_nib >> PAGE_SHIFT;
+ ret = vfio_pin_pages(mdev_dev(q->matrix_mdev->mdev), &q->a_pfn, 1,
+ IOMMU_READ | IOMMU_WRITE, &h_pfn);
+ switch (ret) {
+ case 1:
+ break;
+ case -EINVAL:
+ case -E2BIG:
+ status.response_code = AP_RESPONSE_INVALID_ADDRESS;
+ /* Fallthrough */
+ default:
+ return status;
Can we actually hit the default label? AFICT you would return an
all-zero status, i.e. status.response_code == 0 'Normal completion'.
hum right, the setting of AP_INVALID_ADDRESS should be in the default
and there is no need for the two error cases, they will match the default.
+ }
+
+ kvm = q->matrix_mdev->kvm;
+ gisa = kvm->arch.gisa_int.origin;
+
+ h_nib = (h_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) | (q->a_nib & ~PAGE_MASK);
+ aqic_gisa.gisc = q->a_isc;
+ aqic_gisa.isc = kvm_s390_gisc_register(kvm, q->a_isc);
+ aqic_gisa.ir = 1;
+ aqic_gisa.gisa = gisa->next_alert >> 4;
Why gisa->next_alert? Isn't this supposed to get set to gisa origin
(without some bits on the left)?
Someone already asked this question.
The answer is: look at the ap_qirq_ctrl structure, you will see that the
gisa field is 27 bits wide.
+
+ status = ap_aqic(q->apqn, aqic_gisa, (void *)h_nib);
+ switch (status.response_code) {
+ case AP_RESPONSE_NORMAL:
+ /* See if we did clear older IRQ configuration */
+ if (q->p_pfn)
+ vfio_unpin_pages(mdev_dev(q->matrix_mdev->mdev),
+ &q->p_pfn, 1);
+ if (q->p_isc != VFIO_AP_ISC_INVALID)
+ kvm_s390_gisc_unregister(kvm, q->p_isc);
+ q->p_pfn = q->a_pfn;
+ q->p_isc = q->a_isc;
+ break;
+ case AP_RESPONSE_OTHERWISE_CHANGED:
+ /* We could not modify IRQ setings: clear new configuration */
+ vfio_unpin_pages(mdev_dev(q->matrix_mdev->mdev), &q->a_pfn, 1);
+ kvm_s390_gisc_unregister(kvm, q->a_isc);
Hm, see below. Wouldn't you want to set a_isc to VFIO_AP_ISC_INVALID?
grrr!!! when did I insert these 3 lines, it was OK in previous series!
all 3 lines, vfio_unpin() / gisc_unregister / break must go away.
No it wasn't, I will correct this.
+ break;
+ default: /* Fall Through */
Is it 'break' or is it 'Fall Through'?
it is a fall through
+ pr_warn("%s: apqn %04x: response: %02x\n", __func__, q->apqn,
+ status.response_code);
+ vfio_ap_free_irq_data(q);
+ break;
+ }
+
+ return status;
+}
--
Pierre Morel
Linux/KVM/QEMU in Böblingen - Germany
