On 08/06/2020 17.28, Pierre Morel wrote: > > > On 2020-06-08 16:52, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 08/06/2020 16.33, Pierre Morel wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2020-06-08 10:43, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>> On 08/06/2020 10.12, Pierre Morel wrote: >>>>> This patch defines the PSW bits EA/BA used to initialize the PSW masks >>>>> for exceptions. >>>>> >>>>> Since some PSW mask definitions exist already in arch_def.h we add >>>>> these >>>>> definitions there. >>>>> We move all PSW definitions together and protect assembler code >>>>> against >>>>> C syntax. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h | 15 +++++++++++---- >>>>> s390x/cstart64.S | 15 ++++++++------- >>>>> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h b/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h >>>>> index 1b3bb0c..5388114 100644 >>>>> --- a/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h >>>>> +++ b/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h >>>>> @@ -10,15 +10,21 @@ >>>>> #ifndef _ASM_S390X_ARCH_DEF_H_ >>>>> #define _ASM_S390X_ARCH_DEF_H_ >>>>> +#define PSW_MASK_EXT 0x0100000000000000UL >>>>> +#define PSW_MASK_DAT 0x0400000000000000UL >>>>> +#define PSW_MASK_SHORT_PSW 0x0008000000000000UL >>>>> +#define PSW_MASK_PSTATE 0x0001000000000000UL >>>>> +#define PSW_MASK_BA 0x0000000080000000UL >>>>> +#define PSW_MASK_EA 0x0000000100000000UL >>>>> + >>>>> +#define PSW_EXCEPTION_MASK (PSW_MASK_EA | PSW_MASK_BA) >>>> >>>> PSW_EXCEPTION_MASK sounds a little bit unfortunate - that term rather >>>> reminds me of something that disables some interrupts >>>> ... in case you >>>> respin, maybe rather use something like "PSW_EXC_ADDR_MODE" ? >>> >>> EXCEPTIONS_PSW_MASK ? >> >> I think it is the _MASK suffix that mainly bugs me here, since this is >> not a define that you normally use for extracting the bits from a PSW... >> so EXCEPTIONS_PSW without _MASK would be fine for me... but as long as >> I'm the only one who has a strange feeling about this, it's also ok if >> you keep the current name. >> >> Thomas >> > > The _MASK is because it is applied to the psw.mask and not to the > psw.addr part. > > But I agree that the name is not good, to keep the naming convention, > may be it should be: > > PSW_MASK_ON_EXCEPTION > > beginning with PSW_MASK_ like all other psw.mask definitions and > ON_EXCEPTION clearly define when it is used. Good idea, PSW_MASK_ON_EXCEPTION sounds better for me, too! Thomas
