On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 19:51:53 +0100
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> We already have check_pgm_int_code to check and report if a specific
> program interrupt has occourred, but this approach has some issues.
s/occourred/occurred/
>
> In order to specify which test is being run, it was needed to push and
> pop a prefix for each test, which is not nice to read both in the code
> and in the output.
>
> Another issue is that sometimes the condition to test for might require
> other checks in addition to the interrupt.
>
> The simple function added in this patch tests if the program intteruupt
s/intteruupt/interrupt/
> received is the one expected.
>
> Signed-off-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> lib/s390x/asm/interrupt.h | 1 +
> lib/s390x/interrupt.c | 6 ++++++
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/s390x/asm/interrupt.h b/lib/s390x/asm/interrupt.h
> index 1a2e2cd8..a33437b1 100644
> --- a/lib/s390x/asm/interrupt.h
> +++ b/lib/s390x/asm/interrupt.h
> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ void expect_pgm_int(void);
> void expect_ext_int(void);
> uint16_t clear_pgm_int(void);
> void check_pgm_int_code(uint16_t code);
> +int is_pgm(int expected);
>
> /* Activate low-address protection */
> static inline void low_prot_enable(void)
> diff --git a/lib/s390x/interrupt.c b/lib/s390x/interrupt.c
> index 59e01b1a..6f660285 100644
> --- a/lib/s390x/interrupt.c
> +++ b/lib/s390x/interrupt.c
> @@ -51,6 +51,12 @@ void check_pgm_int_code(uint16_t code)
> lc->pgm_int_code);
> }
>
> +int is_pgm(int expected)
is_pgm() is a bit non-descriptive. Maybe check_pgm_int_code_noreport()?
Also, maybe let it take a uint16_t parameter?
> +{
> + mb();
> + return expected == lc->pgm_int_code;
> +}
> +
> void register_pgm_cleanup_func(void (*f)(void))
> {
> pgm_cleanup_func = f;
