On 17/07/2020 16.58, Janosch Frank wrote:
> If a exception new psw mask contains a key a specification exception
> instead of a special operation exception is presented.
I have troubles parsing that sentence... could you write that differently?
(and: "s/a exception/an exception/")
> Let's test
> that.
>
> Also let's add the test to unittests.cfg so it is run more often.
>
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> s390x/skrf.c | 81 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> s390x/unittests.cfg | 4 +++
> 2 files changed, 85 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/s390x/skrf.c b/s390x/skrf.c
> index 9cae589..9733412 100644
> --- a/s390x/skrf.c
> +++ b/s390x/skrf.c
> @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@
> #include <asm/page.h>
> #include <asm/facility.h>
> #include <asm/mem.h>
> +#include <asm/sigp.h>
> +#include <smp.h>
>
> static uint8_t pagebuf[PAGE_SIZE * 2] __attribute__((aligned(PAGE_SIZE * 2)));
>
> @@ -106,6 +108,84 @@ static void test_tprot(void)
> report_prefix_pop();
> }
>
> +#include <asm-generic/barrier.h>
Can we keep the #includes at the top of the file, please?
> +static int testflag = 0;
> +
> +static void wait_for_flag(void)
> +{
> + while (!testflag)
> + mb();
> +}
> +
> +static void set_flag(int val)
> +{
> + mb();
> + testflag = val;
> + mb();
> +}
> +
> +static void ecall_cleanup(void)
> +{
> + struct lowcore *lc = (void *)0x0;
> +
> + lc->ext_new_psw.mask = 0x0000000180000000UL;
Don't we have defines for the PSW values yet?
> + lc->sw_int_crs[0] = 0x0000000000040000;
> +
> + /*
> + * PGM old contains the ext new PSW, we need to clean it up,
> + * so we don't get a special oepration exception on the lpswe
operation
> + * of pgm old.
> + */
> + lc->pgm_old_psw.mask = 0x0000000180000000UL;
> + lc->pgm_old_psw.addr = (unsigned long)wait_for_flag;
> +
> + check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIFICATION);
> + set_flag(1);
> +}
Thomas
