On 24.03.20 11:08, Janosch Frank wrote:
> On 3/24/20 10:52 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 24.03.20 09:12, Janosch Frank wrote:
>>> All CRs are set to 0 and CRs 0 and 14 are set to pre-defined values,
>>> so we also need to test 1-13 and 15 for 0.
>>>
>>> And while we're at it, let's also set some values to cr 1, 7 and 13, so
>>> we can actually be sure that they will be zeroed.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> s390x/smp.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/s390x/smp.c b/s390x/smp.c
>>> index fa40753524f321d4..8c9b98aabd9e8222 100644
>>> --- a/s390x/smp.c
>>> +++ b/s390x/smp.c
>>> @@ -182,16 +182,28 @@ static void test_emcall(void)
>>> report_prefix_pop();
>>> }
>>>
>>> +/* Used to dirty registers of cpu #1 before it is reset */
>>> +static void test_func_initial(void)
>>> +{
>>> + lctlg(1, 0x42000UL);
>>> + lctlg(7, 0x43000UL);
>>> + lctlg(13, 0x44000UL);
>>> + set_flag(1);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static void test_reset_initial(void)
>>> {
>>> struct cpu_status *status = alloc_pages(0);
>>> + uint64_t nullp[12] = {};
>>> struct psw psw;
>>>
>>> psw.mask = extract_psw_mask();
>>> - psw.addr = (unsigned long)test_func;
>>> + psw.addr = (unsigned long)test_func_initial;
>>>
>>> report_prefix_push("reset initial");
>>> + set_flag(0);
>>> smp_cpu_start(1, psw);
>>> + wait_for_flag();
>>>
>>> sigp_retry(1, SIGP_INITIAL_CPU_RESET, 0, NULL);
>>> sigp(1, SIGP_STORE_STATUS_AT_ADDRESS, (uintptr_t)status, NULL);
>>> @@ -202,6 +214,8 @@ static void test_reset_initial(void)
>>> report(!status->fpc, "fpc");
>>> report(!status->cputm, "cpu timer");
>>> report(!status->todpr, "todpr");
>>> + report(!memcmp(&status->crs[1], nullp, sizeof(status->crs[1]) * 12), "cr1-13 == 0");
>>> + report(status->crs[15] == 0, "cr15 == 0");
>>> report_prefix_pop();
>>
>> Why not add a check for crs[0] == 0xe0
>> and crs[14] = 0xc2000000
>
> You mean the checks which are done a few lines below this?
> This patch just actually dirties registers which should be set to 0 so
> we can really be sure that they have been touched.
Right. So feel free to add my RB.
