On 4/2/20 2:29 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>
> On 02.04.20 14:18, Janosch Frank wrote:
>> On 4/2/20 1:02 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>> make sure that sigp sense running status returns a sane value for
>>
>> s/m/M/
>>
>>> stopped CPUs. To avoid potential races with the stop being processed we
>>> wait until sense running status is first 0.
>>
>> ENOPARSE "...is first 0?"
>
> Yes, what about "....smp_sense_running_status returns false." ?
sure, or "returns 0"
"is first 0" just doesn't parse :)
>
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> lib/s390x/smp.c | 2 +-
>>> lib/s390x/smp.h | 2 +-
>>> s390x/smp.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>>> 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/smp.c b/lib/s390x/smp.c
>>> index 5ed8b7b..492cb05 100644
>>> --- a/lib/s390x/smp.c
>>> +++ b/lib/s390x/smp.c
>>> @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ bool smp_cpu_stopped(uint16_t addr)
>>> return !!(status & (SIGP_STATUS_CHECK_STOP|SIGP_STATUS_STOPPED));
>>> }
>>>
>>> -bool smp_cpu_running(uint16_t addr)
>>> +bool smp_sense_running_status(uint16_t addr)
>>> {
>>> if (sigp(addr, SIGP_SENSE_RUNNING, 0, NULL) != SIGP_CC_STATUS_STORED)
>>> return true;
>>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/smp.h b/lib/s390x/smp.h
>>> index a8b98c0..639ec92 100644
>>> --- a/lib/s390x/smp.h
>>> +++ b/lib/s390x/smp.h
>>> @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ struct cpu_status {
>>> int smp_query_num_cpus(void);
>>> struct cpu *smp_cpu_from_addr(uint16_t addr);
>>> bool smp_cpu_stopped(uint16_t addr);
>>> -bool smp_cpu_running(uint16_t addr);
>>> +bool smp_sense_running_status(uint16_t addr);
>>
>> That's completely unrelated to the test
>
> Right but this name seems to better reflect what the function does. Because this is not
> the oppositite of cpu_stopped.
I'm pondering if we want to split that out.
>>
>>> int smp_cpu_restart(uint16_t addr);
>>> int smp_cpu_start(uint16_t addr, struct psw psw);
>>> int smp_cpu_stop(uint16_t addr);
>>> diff --git a/s390x/smp.c b/s390x/smp.c
>>> index 79cdc1f..b4b1ff2 100644
>>> --- a/s390x/smp.c
>>> +++ b/s390x/smp.c
>>> @@ -210,6 +210,18 @@ static void test_emcall(void)
>>> report_prefix_pop();
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static void test_sense_running(void)
>>> +{
>>> + report_prefix_push("sense_running");
>>> + /* make sure CPU is stopped */
>>> + smp_cpu_stop(1);
>>> + /* wait for stop to succeed. */
>>> + while(smp_sense_running_status(1));
>>> + report(!smp_sense_running_status(1), "CPU1 sense claims not running");
>>
>> That's basically true anyway after the loop, no?
>
> Yes, but you get no "positive" message in the more verbose output variants
> without a report statement.
report(true, "CPU1 sense claims not running");
That's also possible, but I leave that up to you.
>
>>
>>> + report_prefix_pop();
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +
>>> /* Used to dirty registers of cpu #1 before it is reset */
>>> static void test_func_initial(void)
>>> {
>>> @@ -319,6 +331,7 @@ int main(void)
>>> test_store_status();
>>> test_ecall();
>>> test_emcall();
>>> + test_sense_running();
>>> test_reset();
>>> test_reset_initial();
>>> smp_cpu_destroy(1);
>>>
>>
>>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
