On 25.09.19 15:30, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 25/09/2019 15.27, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 20.09.19 10:03, Janosch Frank wrote:
>>> Testing SIGP emulation for the following order codes:
>>> * start
>>> * stop
>>> * restart
>>> * set prefix
>>> * store status
>>> * stop and store status
>>> * reset
>>> * initial reset
>>> * external call
>>> * emegergency call
>>>
>>> restart and set prefix are part of the library and needed to start
>>> other cpus.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> s390x/Makefile | 1 +
>>> s390x/smp.c | 242 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> s390x/unittests.cfg | 4 +
>>> 3 files changed, 247 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 s390x/smp.c
>>>
>>> diff --git a/s390x/Makefile b/s390x/Makefile
>>> index d83dd0b..3744372 100644
>>> --- a/s390x/Makefile
>>> +++ b/s390x/Makefile
>>> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ tests += $(TEST_DIR)/cpumodel.elf
>>> tests += $(TEST_DIR)/diag288.elf
>>> tests += $(TEST_DIR)/stsi.elf
>>> tests += $(TEST_DIR)/skrf.elf
>>> +tests += $(TEST_DIR)/smp.elf
>>> tests_binary = $(patsubst %.elf,%.bin,$(tests))
>>>
>>> all: directories test_cases test_cases_binary
>>> diff --git a/s390x/smp.c b/s390x/smp.c
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..7032494
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/s390x/smp.c
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,242 @@
>>> +/*
>>> + * Tests sigp emulation
>>> + *
>>> + * Copyright 2019 IBM Corp.
>>> + *
>>> + * Authors:
>>> + * Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> + *
>>> + * This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
>>> + * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2.
>>> + */
>>> +#include <libcflat.h>
>>> +#include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
>>> +#include <asm/interrupt.h>
>>> +#include <asm/page.h>
>>> +#include <asm/facility.h>
>>> +#include <asm-generic/barrier.h>
>>> +#include <asm/sigp.h>
>>> +
>>> +#include <smp.h>
>>> +#include <alloc_page.h>
>>> +
>>> +static int testflag = 0;
>>> +
>>> +static void cpu_loop(void)
>>> +{
>>> + for (;;) {}
>>
>> Won't that be optimized out completely?
>
> Why? AFAIK this is the standard way to write and endless loop ... how
> can a compiler optimize that away?
Was messing it up with "just" an empty loop body, I think you're right.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
